California will stop life and disability insurers from using certain genetic test results of people who have no symptoms when deciding whether to sell them coverage and at what price. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the measure, Assembly Bill 1798, on September 30, and it takes effect January 1, 2027. Insurers weigh health information in a step called underwriting, which sets who is approved and what the premium costs. Until now, federal law has left that step largely open to genetic information, and the insurance industry fought the bill through the summer.
The bill was written by Assembly Member Lori Wilson and sponsored by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, and the state’s Department of Insurance announced the signing as part of a package of nine bills. The department calls it the Safeguarding Genetic Information Act. The law is now Chapter 897 of the Statutes of 2026, according to the bill’s page on CalMatters’ Digital Democracy tracker. The Senate passed it 29-0 on August 27, and the Assembly agreed to the Senate’s changes 55-12 the next day.
The change matters to Californians who have had a gene test, or who are considering one, and who may one day apply for term or permanent life insurance or private disability income coverage. The department says the law covers life and disability insurers and results from people who show no symptoms of the condition tested for. The department’s announcement does not say how the law treats policies already in force.
Insurance rules in California change on set dates, and The Retirement Money Brief sends the dates that matter, one email each weekday.
Get the free deadline brief → Free from RetireShield. Unsubscribe anytime.
The gap in federal law that AB 1798 addresses
The federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, known as GINA, bars discrimination based on genetic information in group health plans and in employment. It leaves out life insurance and disability insurance, and an Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee analysis describes that omission as deliberate on Congress’s part. California’s own Insurance Code has had some protections, including a rule under Section 10148 that lets an insurer require genetic testing only in limited cases, with informed consent, and makes the insurer pay for the test.
Lara has pointed to what those protections miss. In the legislative record he is quoted saying that when genetic or biomarker test results reach insurers inadvertently, such as through medical records, the safeguards vanish. In the September 30 announcement, Lara said: “Genetic testing should lead to better health outcomes, not discrimination.”
Wilson framed the bill as a matter of health equity. The committee analysis quotes her saying that California has a responsibility to lead in protecting patients and that genetic testing and biomarker screening should lead to better health, not to higher premiums, reduced benefits or denial of coverage. The analysis also notes that genetic data cannot be changed once exposed, unlike a password or a credit card number, which is why supporters argue that an exposed result carries a risk with no end date.
What supporters say testing fears are costing
The analysis cites a 2016 study in which 28% of people who declined whole genome sequencing named insurance discrimination as their main reason. It also cites a 2023 survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in which 60% of respondents were concerned that genetic results showing a higher cancer risk would affect their life insurance. Those figures drove the argument that fear of the underwriting desk keeps people away from tests their doctors might recommend.
The insurers’ case against the bill
The industry’s opposition came in public. John Shirikian, president and CEO of the Association of California Life & Health Insurance Companies, wrote in a July 28 opinion piece that the bill would reduce access to life insurance and raise Medi-Cal costs. He argued that insurers already cannot compel an applicant to be tested and must obtain written informed consent, under privacy rules the Department of Insurance oversees.
His central claim was about pricing. Without genetic information, Shirikian wrote, premiums drift away from actual risk, and some consumers would drop coverage altogether. He warned that middle-income people with the least spare income, or with medical challenges, would be hurt most. He tied the concern to public spending, citing Medi-Cal spending expected to reach a record $49 billion by 2027, and to a 20% rise from 2017 to 2022 in Medi-Cal enrollees using long-term services and supports after California’s Partnership for Long-Term Care program weakened.
Penalties and limits as the bill stood in committee
The April committee analysis laid out the enforcement structure. Administrative penalties for a first violation ran from $1,500 to $2,500, and from $2,500 to $5,000 for later violations. Knowing violations or a pattern of violations by an insurer faced administrative penalties of $15,000 to $100,000 per violation. Civil penalties for knowing or pattern violations ran from $1,000 to $10,000, and the cap on damages for negligent disclosure payable to the person tested rose from $1,000 to $5,000.
The same analysis described narrow exceptions at that stage, including a limit for very large policies with a face value above $1.5 million and a bar on using results from direct-to-consumer tests, which are the kits sold to the public. The Department of Insurance’s announcement does not list exceptions, and it describes the final law only as covering “certain” genetic test results of people without symptoms.
Taking a genetic-testing question to the Department of Insurance
The department’s announcement points Californians with questions to its Consumer Hotline at 1-800-927-4357, with TTY users dialing 800-482-4833, or to the department’s website by webform or online chat. The date to keep in mind is January 1, 2027, when the law starts to apply. Until then, the written-consent rules the industry cites remain the ones on the books.
The next step is enforcement. The April committee analysis gave the insurance commissioner authority to assess the penalties described above on top of any other fine or remedy the law allows. After January 1, the first underwriting decisions made under the new rules will show whether Lara’s office enforces the ban as its sponsors describe, and whether the industry’s warning about pricing and lost coverage holds up in practice.
More Financial Reading
- How many CDs can you park at 1 bank? FDIC rules you must know
- Adding someone to your bank account: tax traps and smart moves
- What really happens to your joint savings account when you die?
This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed by The Money Overview’s editorial team.
