[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"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","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,75,87],{"_32":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":73},"mediaId",6125810,"mediaKeyId","2675493-dd6df75ba7693f1edbd8e54509214314","parentId",2675493,"title","Committee approves bill requiring human medical review for some insurer denials; debate centers on claims vs. prior authorization","audioSeconds",2892,"startMs",719000,"endMs",3611000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2675493-dd6df75ba7693f1edbd8e54509214314&start=719&end=3611","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2675493-dd6df75ba7693f1edbd8e54509214314/thumbnail_719000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6125810/Arizona/Committee-approves-bill-requiring-human-medical-review-for-some-insurer-denials-debate-centers-on-claims-vs-prior-authorization","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125810-1354938fcc31dfd42169550828e7fa7b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770015855&Signature=JIRnH3fMpXBzjzgm5Wcw6xiteLu-j7LTiAVRXOWzeEi7DYlYp0zqq2NEohGS59zFzxv02meNDPjSNtpDFbX~w8r68gB5sb0p1hfKjrVemUZdICmI4Lx7vCJAA8v3ZhNwJ3zYXk0zXkxGySAO8vgUhfe83vrgWoyPcoMDRAyHxk1qz1bsGVSN0-9HwaVzCMGwkW7smAZ6KNrbtY8Cu4wLSvfhFblL-xx21d8ybTg4HTinOysJs7-UU7EO7FKqFAFDfuJV5v~ek7Z5tmK62jg1VHj52n-ldlOTIJugT7DWLFrCpqPQgsNGqRvdS-n7fXLz64TJihucZD6jsRkMaHf1Lw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arizona Legislature","date","2025-03-17T00:00:00Z","article","A Senate committee on March 13 voted 5–2 to pass House Bill 2175, as amended, after adopting a strike‑everything amendment that would require a medical director or licensed health care provider to personally review insurer denials and prior authorizations that involve medical necessity, experimental status, or other matters requiring medical judgment.

Representative Willoughby, the bill sponsor, told the committee she wants “a human… to be the one that makes the final decision” on denials that implicate clinical judgment and expressed willingness to continue stakeholder talks (strike amendment dated 03/13/2025, effective 07/01/2026). She said the measure does not ban use of AI for administrative tasks but would prevent AI from “supplanting human judgment” in final adverse decisions.

Nut graf: Supporters — including the Arizona Medical Association, Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association and patient advocates — framed the bill as a targeted fix to growing automated denials. Opponents from health insurers and PBMs argued the claims side of the bill would create an unprecedented work stream, delay clean‑claim payments, and impose significant operational costs. The committee adopted the amendment and voted to return the bill with a due‑pass recommendation.

What the amendment does and why supporters want it

The adopted “strike everything” amendment (03/13/2025) clarifies that before a claim or prior authorization may be denied on grounds that involve medical necessity, experimental status, or other issues requiring medical judgment, a medical director or health care provider must individually review the decision, exercise independent medical judgment, and not rely solely on recommendations from other sources. The sponsor and physician groups said the change is intended to preserve patient safety where clinical judgment is at issue while still allowing AI for administrative screening.

Supporters’ testimony

Amanda Sheinson of the Arizona Medical Association testified in “strong support” and said the bill is needed because denials and prior authorization burdens have “grown exponentially,” and that AI should not be allowed to “supplant the judgment of a physician.” Christina Corriere (Arizona Medical Association) said federal reports show a share of denials are categorized as medical‑necessity related and that denials rose sharply as AI became widely available; she told the committee there was a 20% increase in denials between February 2022 and February 2023 in national reporting cited by proponents.

Damien Johnson, representing the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association, described provider and hospital financial impacts — citing industry survey numbers included in his testimony — and urged committee passage while acknowledging continuing stakeholder discussions.

Opposition and operational concerns

Chad Heinrich, representing Arizonans for Affordable Health Coverage (insurer interests), said prior authorization denials already require medical‑director signoff under current Arizona law and argued the claims provision is the problematic portion. Heinrich told the committee that claims are processed on the back end, can include administrative and contractual questions (for example unpaid premiums or fraud checks), and that requiring a medical director review of claims would create a separate Arizona work stream. He warned that moving claims into a manual review stream would risk delaying payment beyond the state’s 30‑day clean‑claim requirement and could cost insurers millions to reconfigure national claims systems to accommodate an Arizona‑only process.

Committee discussion and compromise signals

Senators on both sides said they wanted more technical work on the claims language. Several members noted there was more consensus on the prior‑authorization (pre‑service) portion than on the claims (post‑service) portion. Sponsor Willoughby and opponents both said they were open to further drafting work; the sponsor added the bill includes a delayed effective date (07/01/2026) to allow additional stakeholder negotiation.

Votes and next steps

The committee adopted the strike‑everything amendment and returned HB 2175 with a due‑pass recommendation. The roll and tally recorded in the hearing transcript show the bill passed the committee as amended by a 5–2 vote.

Ending: The sponsor and opponents both said they planned additional meetings; the bill proceeds with the amendment in place and a delayed effective date intended to allow further drafting before statewide implementation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","03/17/2025 - Senate Finance","oneSentenceSummary","A Senate committee on March 13 voted 5–2 to pass House Bill 2175, as amended, after adopting a strike‑everything amendment that would require a medical director or licensed health care provider to personally review insurer denials and prior authorizations that involve medical necessity, experimental status, or other matters requiring medical judgment.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature Arizona, Arizona","taxId",78572,"location","Arizona","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":76,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":77,"_40":78,"_42":79,"_44":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6125805,"Panel advances bill to tie unemployment‑insurance duration to statewide job market; opponents warn of harm to jobseekers in rural areas",839,2316000,3155000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2675493-dd6df75ba7693f1edbd8e54509214314&start=2316&end=3155","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2675493-dd6df75ba7693f1edbd8e54509214314/thumbnail_2316000.jpg","/articles/6125805/Arizona/Panel-advances-bill-to-tie-unemploymentinsurance-duration-to-statewide-job-market-opponents-warn-of-harm-to-jobseekers-in-rural-areas","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125805-047c46f0756387ffd502420c16af39b8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770015855&Signature=jBjlQUdrmi84ElCx-UR~rYVumabPvqujbGnDVWEGxMnmzADB7h~MMZZltUz1MkRqBlxVYxwYY3zzWBZxso1JZA8Ecuc6aXmsm~3ZGp6UjCSAJ3mSXQAlNbi9RGeD-MrYd5Cp3eQ0QSo58Pd0qD70i4aL47OefPkr9jrxQAB3iWbcj5-nzfi-Sz2-zSUuFKEn4sLF9WuW6jnXaFEjdOtzxPA5w01kyB3W~AGh9T9xYu2Knzgy8BD3JljlyIoNi~GhM3R0SiIxZ-WTXanCaWvl0f622yom4yTPhoTOXjVS62~6JABnFISYONdR7G17PrKxmtA5gbkYDsKMKz~xAwtPHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Senate committee on March 13 voted 4–3 to advance House Bill 2450, a proposal to index the maximum duration of unemployment insurance benefits to statewide unemployment rates. Under the bill, the maximum number of weeks a claimant may receive benefits would vary from 12 to 26 weeks according to a schedule tied to the unemployment rate.

Representative Carbone, introducing the bill, said the change would protect the state’s UI trust fund from insolvency in severe downturns and better align benefit duration with labor market conditions. He and a speaker from FGA Action argued indexing accelerates reemployment and strengthens the trust fund: Tim Pugliese of FGA Action cited experience in other states where indexing was followed by faster returns to work and projected a roughly $1 billion boost to Arizona’s trust fund under the proposal.

Nut graf: Proponents framed the proposal as fiscally prudent and counter‑cyclical; opponents argued it would force jobseekers to accept mismatched, lower‑quality jobs and that using a statewide index would harm counties with higher localized unemployment. The committee split along those lines and voted to move the bill forward for further consideration.

Support testimony and fiscal arguments

Representative Carbone and witnesses said Arizona’s unemployment rate has fallen from COVID-era highs and that the UI trust fund has experienced times of strain (the speaker referenced a 2010 insolvency requiring federal borrowing). Tim Pugliese (FGA Action) said indexing was adopted in a number of other states and cited faster reemployment outcomes and lower employer taxation in examples such as Kansas, North Carolina and Alabama.

Opposition and distributional concerns

Blake Lister of Opportunity Arizona and other opponents said indexing by statewide quarterly unemployment would not reflect local labor markets, hurting rural counties with persistently higher unemployment (example cited: Apache County). They also warned indexing based on the prior quarter could fail to capture sudden downturns and leave people ineligible before economic improvements arrive.

Committee debate

Committee members pressed proponents on empirical evidence and timing. Representative Carbone and proponents cited historical averages and said most claims historically exhaust fewer weeks than the program maximum. Opponents warned the change could push jobseekers into lower‑paying positions and that a look‑back to the prior quarter creates a timing mismatch in sudden recessions. The committee acknowledged those tradeoffs but advanced the bill for more work.

Outcome and next steps

The committee voted to advance HB 2450 with a 4–3 majority. Supporters requested additional data analysis and said they would work with stakeholders on implementation details, including whether a statewide index or a more localized trigger is appropriate.","A Senate committee on March 13 voted 4–3 to advance House Bill 2450, which would tie the maximum duration of unemployment insurance benefits to the statewide unemployment rate (a sliding schedule from 12 to 26 weeks).",{"_32":88,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":89,"_40":90,"_42":91,"_44":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6125800,"Committee actions at a glance: several bills moved forward after mixed debate",1482,4278000,5760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2675493-dd6df75ba7693f1edbd8e54509214314&start=4278&end=5760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2675493-dd6df75ba7693f1edbd8e54509214314/thumbnail_4278000.jpg","/articles/6125800/Arizona/Committee-actions-at-a-glance-several-bills-moved-forward-after-mixed-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125800-b6bb219cb5a540cc26308e3e3c3c2ab1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770015855&Signature=DoErTsnx8rKcDJXvW8Cy4rySt5IvgBqZM2YmpXz-uvqf7d2wc~Y1Mls5Icmz09-yhzKViYoARZLj5pipRwsrHo5Cc~pTWp8S-9GsG2V2iiPjC6Scx6LmntZylvqrMnRwCDVBlBHVJRmoSqeh-e~ISVGKhUnxHhg45VYZkyzT1JdT~9RC3o0tq9vAL5RBGCAkX0lFD8IhR3LfVUQT2kAfO9K4SLe8aaZgQ82MB8NMpd9Qsn3VQ8McV2WCjQNk8AcdyKd8vhfxH8QzpZaDZY3ytTD4Y-jRwuskm7rG~-BW8JVhOwwk3E0eUzUTDdy-Pd4VBMaFHx7ojR72LZyMh09Hsw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Alongside longer debates on AI in claims (HB 2175) and unemployment indexing (HB 2450), the committee considered multiple additional measures and recorded votes. Below are the bills that received committee action during the March 13 hearing and the vote tallies recorded on the hearing record.

Votes at a glance

- House Bill 23‑24 (forfeiture and digital‑asset handling): Committee returned the bill with a due‑pass recommendation after adopting its changes. Recorded committee tally in the hearing transcript: 5–2 in favor. The bill would allow courts to order forfeiture of digital assets traceable to offenses, authorize sale of seized digital assets, and create a Bitcoin and digital assets reserve fund to receive 25% of post‑victim distribution proceeds; victims and attorney‑general costs are prioritized in the distribution waterfall.

- House Bill 29‑06 (expand fin‑tech sandbox to digital assets/blockchain): Passed by the committee 6–1. The measure broadens the state’s fintech sandbox to explicitly include digital assets and blockchain use in eligible “innovation” experiments under Attorney General oversight.

- House Bill 21‑19 (local notification when cities adopt model city tax code options): Passed by committee (recorded tally 6–1 after adoption of an amendment). The adopted amendment narrows application to municipalities that issue business licenses and requires cities to request lists of affected taxpayers from the Department of Revenue at least 75 days before proposing a change.

- HCR 20‑23 (constitutional referral regarding property‑tax exemptions for certain veterans): Passed the committee by recorded tally 4–3. The referral would place a measure on the ballot exempting property of combat veterans with a 100% service‑connected disability from primary property taxes; the resolution also bars tax authorities from increasing rates to offset the exemption.

- House Bill 20‑80 (administrative updates to public safety retirement statutes): Passed (committee recorded tally indicated an affirmative committee recommendation; hearing record shows unanimous or near‑unanimous support in committee testimony and final procedural passage).

- House Bill 22‑10 (continuation of Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions): Passed committee (recorded vote 6–1). The department provided an audit update to the committee and outlined steps taken toward implementation of audit recommendations.

What to watch next

Most of the bills above proceed to subsequent committee or floor consideration depending on the chamber calendar. Several measures (notably the digital asset forfeiture bill and the fintech sandbox expansion) prompted technical questions about implementation and interagency responsibilities (for example, custody and administration of any digital‑asset reserve), and sponsors signaled intent to continue technical work with affected agencies.

Ending: The committee scheduled further floor and follow‑up work; sponsors and affected agencies were told to return with clarifying language where needed.","During the March 13 hearing the committee also advanced or passed several other bills with limited floor discussion. This roundup lists actions and recorded committee vote tallies for those items and notes next procedural steps.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee approves bill requiring human medical review for some insurer denials; debate centers on claims vs. prior authorization

Panel advances bill to tie unemployment‑insurance duration to statewide job market; opponents warn of harm to jobseekers in rural areas

Committee actions at a glance: several bills moved forward after mixed debate