[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6345224,"mediaKeyId","2249471-5db2a17212a8fd31083f8b466e68bb39","parentId",2249471,"title","Senate committee hears wide-ranging debate on corporate practice of medicine bill","audioSeconds",3646,"startMs",1000,"endMs",3647000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249471-5db2a17212a8fd31083f8b466e68bb39&start=1&end=3647","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249471-5db2a17212a8fd31083f8b466e68bb39/thumbnail_1000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345224/Washington/Senate-committee-hears-wide-ranging-debate-on-corporate-practice-of-medicine-bill","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345224-267f1f098b5a864255276ed523cbbf4d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175080&Signature=Y-F4sm8qKaJTyPL6bp0xrKC9ew1WbXK60AuZhKTtotCcaJsHD-PlhieE2d2ECPn9RyKOdyceDL65xPynOfGMHrHtx1wZvFEWM2HCigS4GYB5GiNyWu0HMRgGJWEFqSUTk2pOHbNUwJptfOH-YRuHSqH1MLHjhSa8mtmV3XH5r5fYPvCarByepRPmC0v-jDrZzpf6~njsrXJknIFY6YhOLh9ZU77IpefltcrPTA2eg8rpaWBbutW01N5hf-HNRIWaIlsXQEBzfSxE2uHZyTFXA3kJxKHp1BzhjyduPHbAnNj4Bq84Ma-V8RukxAR7cKOx38mUy6UYQZG9zwCCVsgetQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Health & Long-Term Care","date","2025-02-07T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 5,387, which would codify restrictions on corporate ownership and management of medical practices, drew hours of testimony on Feb. 7 before the Washington State Senate Health & Long Term Care Committee. The bill’s prime sponsor, Senator June Robinson, told the committee the measure is designed to “safeguard patient care by upholding the corporate practice and medicine laws” and to limit private equity influence on clinical decisions.

The bill would make it unlawful, except through recognized professional entities such as professional LLCs and professional service corporations, for entities without a license to practice medicine to own a medical practice, employ licensed health care providers, or “otherwise engage in the practice of medicine,” and would require licensed providers to be majority owners and to exert “meaningful control.” Committee staff described additional language that would bar non‑licensed individuals from directing or otherwise interfering with a licensed provider’s professional judgment.

Supporters emphasized risks they say stem from commercialization and private equity. Jane Beyer of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner summarized national and state acquisition trends, saying private equity deals in health care rose from 75 in 2012 to 484 in 2021 and that Washington saw four private equity acquisitions in 2014 and 97 in 2023. “We think that this bill keeps private equity firms and management services organizations…out of the clinical decisions that are made,” Beyer said.

Several practicing physicians and clinical leaders testified in favor, citing patient safety and clinician autonomy. Dr. Deborah Glasser, a retired primary care physician, said corporate control redirects care “toward efficiency and profitability for the business rather than for the patient.” Sam Hatzenbieler of the Economic Opportunity Institute told the committee private equity ownership is “almost completely unregulated” and linked it to higher costs and poorer outcomes in some studies.

Opponents and stakeholders urged narrower language and exceptions to avoid disrupting existing care arrangements and access. Representatives of telehealth and specialty practices — including the American Telemedicine Association and fertility and dermatology clinics — said the bill’s in‑state ownership and broad restrictions on management services organizations (MSOs) could force telehealth companies to stop serving Washington patients, jeopardize access to specialized services such as fertility care, and make it harder for independent practices to afford expensive equipment or expand Medicaid access.

Radiology and outpatient imaging operators described practical dependencies on outside capital to buy and operate multi‑million dollar scanners and to staff imaging centers. Jared Durkee, a radiologist, told the committee that modern imaging “is beyond the financial capacity of a few physicians to buy and run,” warning that prohibiting common MSO partnerships could put 14 imaging centers serving about 160,000 Washington patients at risk.

Hospital representatives and hospitalist physicians also raised concerns about portions of the bill that they said would intrude on interdisciplinary team functions and the widely used employment structures in hospital systems. Chris Knapp, deputy general counsel for MultiCare Health System, argued the hospital exemption in the bill does not match existing ownership and employment arrangements and could leave many hospitals and their physician staff in unclear legal territory.

Multiple witnesses, including the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Hospital Association and independent physician groups, urged the committee to refine the draft. WSMA noted broad support for the bill’s goal—preserving clinical autonomy—but warned that enforcement language could place liability on individual physicians for organizational practices. Several physician witnesses asked for clearer definitions of the prohibited conduct (for example, what constitutes “interference” in clinical decision making) and requested safe harbors for routine administrative relationships with MSOs that do not, in practice, affect clinical care.

Committee staff and the sponsor acknowledged the concerns and said they were open to amendments. Senator Robinson said she would consider clarifications to prevent unintended disruptions to patient access while preserving the bill’s protections. The committee did not vote on the bill during the hearing.

Ending: The hearing generated detailed competing views: proponents seeking stronger statutory safeguards against corporate influence on clinical care, and representatives of providers, hospitals and industry warning of unintended consequences for access and capacity. Committee staff and the sponsor signaled they would work with stakeholders on amendments before any further action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Health & Long-Term Care - 2/7/2025 8:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 5,387, which would restrict corporate ownership and influence over medical practices, drew hours of testimony Feb. 7 before the Washington State Senate Health & Long Term Care Committee, with supporters urging protection of clinician decision making and opponents warning of access and implementation risks.","taxTitle","Health & Long Term Care, Senate, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20503,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6345215,"Senate committee considers bill to codify emergency protections for pregnant patients",1432,4408000,5840000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249471-5db2a17212a8fd31083f8b466e68bb39&start=4408&end=5840","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249471-5db2a17212a8fd31083f8b466e68bb39/thumbnail_4408000.jpg","/articles/6345215/Washington/Senate-committee-considers-bill-to-codify-emergency-protections-for-pregnant-patients","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345215-4ce8215911ffb093f85b6ba450486b79/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175080&Signature=aLvvdWj6LGKOhfAJfV0DbmgU25WMQ9eH3T9QxjQ3e7Iisk6LMzrZZcdYk792b9UMv5rrd4hS1lle2o-ZimkZqRIsaKtih8jMy09Q-QIGIDtBuqHsKcXXX53u~xosXctbxvvgrZzAnpm81cqN~e1zl8dkv8uPMlKjuguJ5b4hCtgIONCxkGddbWXw~q3qcObbsB5Guw4twONDdjKNvyMJCmWSSdHzPm0iZhcc9TPcWJ52gSWAaZoO1IOiE99taX9l37bTnJosrM01vPpfxiKo0zqkizvS-N6NeGg3m2Vg-Md9qUzwl~t852igjeoEIbTEkbbSxbdhlUHvr~rote7A0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 5,557 would place in statute requirements that hospitals provide emergency medical screening and necessary stabilizing treatment to pregnant patients consistent with federal EMTALA obligations and recent Washington Department of Health emergency rules. The bill was discussed Feb. 7 in the Senate Health & Long Term Care Committee.

Sponsor remarks emphasized Washington’s longstanding protections for reproductive health and the need to ensure that pregnant patients who present with life‑threatening conditions receive timely, evidence‑based care. Senator Deb Krishnasen (prime sponsor) said the measure is intended to “guarantee protections for patients in crisis” and to prevent uncertainty following shifts in federal policy.

The Department of Health and the Washington State Women’s Commission testified in support and recommended harmonizing statutory definitions with the Protecting Pregnant Patients Act (PPPA). Lacey Fahrenbach, chief of prevention, safety and health at the Department of Health, told the committee that emergency abortion care “is crucial for preventing maternal deaths and preserving overall health,” and that the department had provided technical amendments to prioritize patient needs and timely transfer procedures.

Obstetrics and gynecology organizations, Planned Parenthood and practicing OB/GYNs described clinical scenarios that committee members said illustrated the stakes. Dr. Shannon Bailey, an OB/GYN who covers emergency obstetric care, recounted patients with life‑threatening hemorrhage, ruptured ectopic pregnancies and other emergencies that required immediate, evidence‑based interventions to prevent death. “Any delay in her surgery or care would have resulted in her death,” Bailey said describing a patient with rapidly progressing miscarriage and heavy bleeding.

Planned Parenthood and other proponents asked the committee to align SB 5,557’s definitions with the PPPA and to ensure transfer protections: hospitals should not transfer a patient out of an emergency department until they are stabilized or the patient gives informed consent to transfer.

Opponents at the hearing, including several individual public commenters, argued the bill would force hospitals to perform abortions even when hospitals or providers have religious objections. Those opponents asked the legislature to preserve conscience protections and limits to hospital obligations. Hospital associations and system representatives supported the bill’s intent but recommended technical amendments and flexibility. The Washington State Hospital Association urged conformity with existing emergency rules and asked the committee to preserve DOH’s ability to maintain up‑to‑date regulatory guidance.

Ending: The committee heard extensive clinical and legal testimony and asked staff and stakeholders to refine statutory language to harmonize definitions with existing state protections and DOH rules. No vote was taken at the hearing.","Senate Bill 5,557 would codify emergency department obligations to provide stabilizing treatment to pregnant patients, aligning state law with federal EMTALA and recent Washington Department of Health emergency rules; the Senate Health & Long Term Care Committee heard hours of clinical and agency testimony Feb. 7.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6345219,"Committee delays statewide prior‑authorization API deadline to align with federal rule",861,3639000,4500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249471-5db2a17212a8fd31083f8b466e68bb39&start=3639&end=4500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249471-5db2a17212a8fd31083f8b466e68bb39/thumbnail_3639000.jpg","/articles/6345219/Washington/Committee-delays-statewide-priorauthorization-API-deadline-to-align-with-federal-rule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345219-34e181de7617287ac8f8b8819a33c72b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175080&Signature=MMUHbQAweEM3Nri2G1UFgpf4AsiELmxyTrSdZta1VEeQkTRmO2mgZSaHKmPngAys6Fv9uYoh7EC2~ylofofvcQlIky9UU06tM0mC-HbZW5~jmlSuFXiu1CSWShiWg8RUwzyj67E7-Iq8ioAZqysngREI7ozX2-FVgGyYRKNYyLaw~hLY1CUmJ0TznDKGiEG291ZQ9jNJuD~GvxixDSaAAelvewmbaGBIgU8~MDnRyjJziTOpMBWE76Ri7hTC7HS1eIi~4YhF4nLtJJp19L4GhK~8MQA53uFWeLEel3nZfJ7kGc-3NWGbIvjgy9N0tDJ7TopTVzW5hlD1dt1wjR0gsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 5,324, a proposed substitute that would align Washington’s prior‑authorization API requirements with recently finalized federal rules, was the subject of a committee briefing and public testimony on Feb. 7 before the Senate Health & Long Term Care Committee.

Committee staff explained the substitute would remove many detailed state‑level prescription requirements for prior‑authorization APIs and instead require that APIs be “consistent with the final rules issued by CMS.” The substitute also pushes the state implementation date to Jan. 1, 2027, after federal rules and implementation guides are in place.

Industry and provider witnesses supported alignment and the extended timeline. Jennifer Ziegler of the Association of Washington Healthcare Plans said the substitute is “as tailored as narrowly as possible to be focused only on making sure that the date is consistent with the federal timeline of 01/01/2027.” Christine Brewer of Premera Blue Cross and Heidi Kriz of Regence told the committee that prior‑authorization interoperability has reduced administrative burden in pilots and early deployments: Regence said providers in its pilot receive immediate responses 94% of the time, and that 85% of inbound queries show the requested service does not require prior authorization once records are checked via API.

Proponents said APIs will reduce reliance on faxed requests — testimony showed about 45% of prior‑authorization requests still arrive by fax — and speed determinations by pulling clinical data from the provider’s electronic medical record into standardized API exchanges.

Hospital and provider witnesses asked for clarifications on how the state and federal rules will align, urged flexibility for different hospital and provider IT environments, and requested minor technical fixes to exemptions and definitions. Shawn Graham of the Washington State Medical Association and Lisa Thatcher of the Washington State Hospital Association expressed support for the policy goal and requested targeted clarifying amendments to ensure the law’s effective operation when the federal standards are implemented.

Ending: Testimony showed broad stakeholder support for aligning Washington’s timeline with federal rules and for giving plans and providers time to implement interoperable prior‑authorization APIs. The committee did not take a vote at the hearing and sponsors said they would continue technical discussions with stakeholders.","Senate Bill 5,324 would align Washington’s prior‑authorization application programming interface (API) implementation date with federal rules and extend the state implementation deadline to Jan. 1, 2027. Health plans, hospitals and provider groups supported alignment but asked for refinements to the bill’s language.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6345210,"Senate hears bill to tighten prior‑authorization transparency, limit AI‑only denials and require peer‑to‑peer access",0,7239000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249471-5db2a17212a8fd31083f8b466e68bb39&start=7239&end=7239","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249471-5db2a17212a8fd31083f8b466e68bb39/thumbnail_7239000.jpg","/articles/6345210/Washington/Senate-hears-bill-to-tighten-priorauthorization-transparency-limit-AIonly-denials-and-require-peertopeer-access","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345210-c74ebd4e1c27a0a399be00a48c3211b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175080&Signature=kTQiD-EsVdzBq5RNYA9dwU2~x4wjW0ngLQj8hrUkJqNs25AVcjGKXycD9C4NEiAPqrgg2Ln5l4xk2UYQ3dTUzfoW1y9yWPdyeHpGjgdm3JEYq9~uMjOiixbDgTpWXurm6JCgM6-KL4PxSey3NgBvD~9E3OTwFJr0rYtIx9dx57ehGZhxZJaAaKLcvH8UBdWHwMjUhsFv4XxvXhZT-DmOAw3BcdtOMzID6Pr0JKSkdeIXj4sXzsg8R4-BoyBTqz5l1qzDPsXrq~qw6j2uFONBEpisCgpotXU1RnOBX~DzaKYit4jXfjVtb8mGZ1N3y1nG-iyOuo96RQfeW97v5szkmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 5,395, a bill to improve transparency and accountability in the prior‑authorization process, drew broad testimony Feb. 7 before the Senate Health & Long Term Care Committee.

Sponsor Tina Orwall said the bill is intended to make prior‑authorization decisions more transparent, timely and clinical. “There’s been an increased number of things requiring pre‑approval, higher claims being denied and the use of AI in some of those processes,” Orwall said, and the bill seeks to clarify procedures and guardrails so patients get timely care.

Under the draft, when a carrier issues a prior‑authorization determination the carrier must include a unique identifier for the individual who initially reviewed the request and provide the NPI and credentials of the physician who provided clinical oversight. The bill would also require peer‑to‑peer discussions for adverse determinations with an available clinician who has authority to overturn the decision, prohibit AI or algorithmic tools from being the sole means to deny or delay care, and prohibit retrospective denials that would otherwise be treated as adverse benefit determinations under the appeals process. The measure would also create several reporting requirements and require HCA to identify services that do not require prior authorization by July 2027.

Supporters — including physicians, hospitals and patient advocates — told the committee that prior authorization can delay care and that peer‑to‑peer access and reviewer transparency would reduce unnecessary denials and administrative burden. Dr. Addison Stone, an orthopedic spine surgeon, said his practice saw a 40% increase in prior‑authorization denials over two years and attributed part of the rise to automated denials. Hospital witnesses described cases where services were preapproved but later retroactively rescinded, creating financial and administrative burdens for patients and providers.

Insurers and some integrated health systems opposed or sought changes to portions of the bill. Plans warned the proposal could increase operating costs and said current enforcement tools already exist, and they sought narrower language around reporting, reviewer identification and annual policy update limits. Carriers also warned that requiring highly specialized peer‑to‑peer reviewers for denials could require material staffing increases and added costs for managed care plans.

Ending: The committee heard detailed testimony on both patient harms and operational impacts, and members asked stakeholders to continue discussions on definitions, scope and cost before any vote.","Senate Bill 5,395 would require carriers to include identifying information about reviewers on prior‑authorization notices, ensure peer‑to‑peer discussions are available with clinicians who can overturn denials, restrict retroactive denials, and limit use of artificial intelligence as the sole basis to deny care. Supporters said the changes would","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate committee hears wide-ranging debate on corporate practice of medicine bill

Senate committee considers bill to codify emergency protections for pregnant patients

Committee delays statewide prior‑authorization API deadline to align with federal rule

Senate hears bill to tighten prior‑authorization transparency, limit AI‑only denials and require peer‑to‑peer access