[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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",[32,76,87],{"_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",6611530,"mediaKeyId","2893993-021faad2162c2d562ca20dbc4810547f","parentId",2893993,"title","Lawmakers consider AB448 to curb alleged anti‑competitive practices by vision benefit managers","audioSeconds",2417,"startMs",6466000,"endMs",8883000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2893993-021faad2162c2d562ca20dbc4810547f&start=6466&end=8883","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2893993-021faad2162c2d562ca20dbc4810547f/thumbnail_6466000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6611530/Nevada/Lawmakers-consider-AB448-to-curb-alleged-anticompetitive-practices-by-vision-benefit-managers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611530-5c0fb28bba23585db3d248ec37cddab9/orig.mp4?Expires=1773766107&Signature=SiOlCz0a6t2G8NA1iOazwjFDWqPUZMtCnK18Afc90rFznKUvuezAHHxkww1b5xgk6kBAQiLgZLFGul2bnUnkU~7gQJkt5Yhzg9fzg2OIHSyPUIfcT8TvVD0maVBTz6HzUJPZMnNjsPzLCx2XbzNtdlLMhNHd5MjB4RI~bNzripJ~9UDxE3dicbyiKhYOxYoH0mh9XRwogyTXwF~UwDtybzxEf~9BSCzLDIq96Mw-54OulxPh~evV~c2JTuTo~LiPVAHc4A6PHS8rcQvhXnzFnKXUVB3fpBglxDX-8GzIUYfIW6vVNbgGAEk2W71NKhsW703yr79nX56vt4agUcFSLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-04-08T02:58:04.44Z","article","Assembly Member Greg Koenig presented Assembly Bill 448 to the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor as follow‑up legislation addressing market practices by vision benefit managers (VBMs) and vertical integration in vision care.

Sponsor and proponents described AB448 as a consumer‑protection and competition bill intended to preserve provider choice and prevent VBMs from imposing contractual requirements that steer patients to vertically integrated retail outlets, affiliated labs, or branded frames and lenses. Dr. Steve Gershkin, president of the Nevada Optometric Association and a practicing optometrist in Henderson, told the committee, “AB 4 48 will address many of the unfair and really anti competitive practices being used against Nevada doctors and our patients.”

Amendment and scope: The proponents withdrew proposed reimbursement parity language (section 26 and part of section 37) in a morning amendment to avoid creating an immediate fiscal or reimbursement mandate on state‑funded plans and to focus the bill on contracting, transparency and anti‑steering provisions. As presented, the bill would: prohibit VBMs from mandating that providers use an affiliated lab or supplier, restrict certain gag‑order contract terms, require provider choice for labs and materials in some circumstances, and increase transparency about tiering and provider network criteria. Sponsor and witnesses said the change removed any request that would alter reimbursement rates paid by payers to providers.

Why proponents support it: Optometrists and patient advocates testified that consolidation of VBMs and affiliated retailers/labs reduces patient choice, slows delivery times (they cited examples of patients waiting weeks), forces providers to use affiliated labs or pay higher costs for required products, and can obscure lower out‑of‑pocket options available to patients. Proponents referenced passage of related VBM‑focused laws in other states and urged Nevada to close identified loopholes to prior legislation.

Opposition: Vision care plans and insurers, including VSP Vision, the Nevada Association of Health Plans and the National Association of Vision Care Plans, opposed the bill as drafted. They argued it would raise consumer costs by removing discounts and negotiated savings passed through plans (one witness estimated an average $400 per person loss of savings), would constrain plan operations that qualify and monitor providers, and could create new administrative burdens and litigation exposure. VSP’s representative noted recent litigation over a similar Texas law and warned of legal risk.

Sponsor remarks and next steps: Koenig and proponents said the amendment removed reimbursement parity language in recognition of state budget concerns but maintained the bill’s core contracting and transparency reforms. Supporters urged lawmakers to prioritize patient choice and the provider‑patient relationship. No committee vote was recorded in the hearing transcript.

Ending: The committee received competing testimony from optometrists, patient advocates and vision plan representatives. Supporters framed AB448 as an anti‑steering, transparency and consumer‑choice measure; opponents warned of higher premiums, lost discounts and legal risk. The sponsor asked for further consideration and negotiation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","4/7/2025 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor (2)","oneSentenceSummary","Assembly Bill 448 (sponsor‑amended) would restrict certain practices by vision benefit managers (VBMs), strengthen patient choice and prohibit some contractual steering and mandatory discounts; sponsors removed proposed reimbursement parity language from the amendment to avoid immediate fiscal impact.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":44,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6611535,"Committee hears bill to create Nevada 'fair plan' for homeowners and habitational insurance amid rising nonrenewals",1827,4639000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2893993-021faad2162c2d562ca20dbc4810547f&start=4639&end=6466","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2893993-021faad2162c2d562ca20dbc4810547f/thumbnail_4639000.jpg","/articles/6611535/Nevada/Committee-hears-bill-to-create-Nevada-fair-plan-for-homeowners-and-habitational-insurance-amid-rising-nonrenewals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611535-bbf33d6f0ae65a5cb4a34b7a668cdc26/orig.mp4?Expires=1773766107&Signature=KGfovG0t8bHVw6ad7GkGri1mGngP65jb0vhT0TxpBGhA8nDSkwGhlgM-CZ6ykhBHjTIbSUYO7SXqj7xhNUSFAvauq9FofJjZiko1sr7y1eLY4zwawlfl3HuihrPDGoPq-hrXLCFdSvoFufHnxkj9Ls0F3SNIQsHDZFe2zWu0NYOC0qVIqp5b88aGfek-T-cmrAuEymFeeR6wbX3zBFhTbCt7M30PdzxFfdHU3dRz5ezBObGmXFGlpoG5ROB9BeoefhoOf4yKHVJx0gts3FE143N9RCoLOoomm9aPyc9vmOCjhmTPvgRH1u4hDVZdJBGIM2OCR7Z9Nh~NXDFmWy~EZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assembly Member Jill Dickman presented Assembly Bill 437 to establish a Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan (a “fair plan”) to provide a residual market for property owners unable to obtain traditional homeowners or commercial habitational insurance.

Dickman told the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor that fair plans operate in other states and are pools in which authorized insurers share income, expenses and losses according to their participation. She said fair plans exist as a market‑of‑last‑resort, not as a state‑funded program, and cited nationwide precedent including a recently authorized Colorado law (HB23‑1288).

Why it matters: Insurance commissioner testimony referenced by the sponsor showed a sharp rise in policy nonrenewals and application declines tied to wildfire risk. Dickman quoted division figures showing 264 homeowner policies adversely affected by wildfire risk in 2022, 481 in 2023 and 2,700 in 2024; applications declined from 2,439 (2022) to 4,994 (2023). She and witnesses said those trends threaten local real estate and home‑sale markets because lenders require insurance.

Conceptual amendment: The sponsor described a conceptual amendment to limit the fair plan’s scope and add mitigation and eligibility guardrails. Key amendment components described at the hearing include requiring applicants to obtain wildfire risk assessments and to implement required mitigations; requiring applicants to show denial by three standard insurers before accessing the fair plan; requiring periodic re‑solicitation from standard insurers (every two years) while covered by the fair plan; and including fire chiefs on the plan’s governing board to prioritize mitigation.

Witnesses: Michael Brown (Nevada State Fire Chiefs Association) and multiple local fire chiefs testified in support, telling the committee they receive frequent calls from homeowners whose policies were nonrenewed and that mitigation and defensible‑space work are essential complements to any fair plan. Washoe County representatives said habitational policy limits in the bill (commercial habitational up to $5,000,000) are important for condominium and HOA markets that serve workforce housing near Lake Tahoe.

Fiscal and structural considerations: The sponsor said fair plans require an initial capital assessment paid by member insurers to purchase reinsurance and stabilize operations; she referenced the Colorado fair plan’s initial capital assessment described in testimony (amount referenced in the hearing record as approximately \"45,406,500\" as stated by the sponsor) and noted plans reported combined operational gains nationwide. Supporters stressed the amendment aims to keep the fair plan narrowly tailored as a last‑resort mechanism.

Opposition and alternatives: Trade witnesses asked the committee to prioritize market fixes such as streamlining rate review, improving regulatory processes and promoting mitigation rather than creating a fair plan that could become a large insurer over time, citing California’s experience where the fair plan’s market share grew significantly. The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies urged reforms to the voluntary market rather than creating an insurer of last resort.

Ending: Sponsors asked the committee to adopt the conceptual amendment that emphasizes mitigation, board expertise and eligibility requirements. No formal vote was recorded in the transcript; sponsors and stakeholders said additional drafting and implementation details would be needed before the plan could be established.","Assembly Bill 437 would establish a Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan (a residual market/fair plan) for property owners unable to obtain coverage in the voluntary market; sponsors emphasized wildfire risk, rising nonrenewals and mitigation requirements for applicants.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":80,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6611540,"Assembly committee hears changes to Nevada brewpub rules, including limited out‑of‑state shipping and clarified taproom rules",4521,118000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2893993-021faad2162c2d562ca20dbc4810547f&start=118&end=4639","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2893993-021faad2162c2d562ca20dbc4810547f/thumbnail_118000.jpg","/articles/6611540/Nevada/Assembly-committee-hears-changes-to-Nevada-brewpub-rules-including-limited-outofstate-shipping-and-clarified-taproom-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611540-9de722aa16b5aebb4da73a9ceeabf4fe/orig.mp4?Expires=1773766107&Signature=SevqVGeNAOUMEM5nIpo6W-gnMCbZ7DxChtCQW87XmdINt~cdx0Xnit5vW7CjZkMNisDSM3bJhFCJ0ZUTfu30jD7j3kMVD7uHjVCGwKp1vTd~EB5022JmSTKjBD2b8CbuT78AG92~jdGwrFn9fTj8F-iLxagUfd1e8LqnZHvbylM7~B-EoMitkKqsPqHYdNJBFG2Uip35oRS3sG0YI9IDOl~erRTYo4kHWvjgb1znNxTeL6BJKGdL~bzhFNPOgRu8dmVwCAduL~saFCfUXGjwmLhL1GbNdlvQvnsPzdGa8-JGbmQk~kn6nqSBNc6uZTlXg94UQYGWWr9jJIMY8kjgow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assembly Member Howard Watts presented Assembly Bill 404 to the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor, proposing amended statutory language to clarify how brewpubs and associated taprooms may operate under Nevada law.

The measure, as described by Watts and by Windee (spelled W‑Y‑N‑D‑E‑E) Forrest, owner of Craft House Brewery in Henderson and past president of the Nevada Craft Brewers Association, would codify that brewpubs may operate additional branded tasting rooms (taprooms) and sell other alcoholic beverages at those locations so long as the facilities hold required local and state licenses and transactions move through wholesalers as required by Nevada statute. Forrest told the committee, “Only 2% of beer sales in Nevada are made in Nevada,” and argued AB404 would help Nevada producers reach customers and increase local economic activity.

Why it matters: supporters said the bill would provide regulatory clarity for small, locally owned breweries and expand marketing and sales channels without dismantling the state's three‑tier distribution system of production, wholesale and retail. Watts repeatedly told the committee the amendment was drafted to preserve the three‑tier system: “No. It does not” bypass distributors, he said when asked whether the amendment would allow breweries to avoid wholesalers.

Key provisions and clarifications discussed included codifying that a brewpub may sell beverages it does not produce through a wholesaler, explicitly allowing separate branded taprooms operated by the same brewery if licensed, and a proposed provision to allow craft breweries to ship beer directly to consumers outside Nevada where other law permits.

Committee members and witnesses pressed on operational limits and safeguards. Forrest and Watts described remaining negotiation points in the amendment: a cap on the number of taprooms per brewery (states vary), whether taprooms could be limited to the brewery's county, buffer zones around non‑restricted gaming establishments, audit and record access language, and whether wholesale transactions must be executed electronically to reduce cash transactions. Forrest said some of those items were still under discussion with stakeholders.

Supporters included craft brewers, local chambers of commerce and hospitality groups. Paul Moratkin of the Vegas Chamber and Scott Muellrath of the Henderson Chamber said the bill supports small businesses and job preservation; Peter Saba of the Nevada Restaurant Association called it “a game changer” for local business growth. Multiple brewpub owners testified about economic benefits and about occasions when award‑winning beers generated consumer demand they currently could not fulfill by shipping.

Opponents centered on labor, job security and preservation of the three‑tier system. Unions and distributors — including the Nevada Beer Wholesalers Association, Southern Glazer's representatives, Teamsters Local 14 and other labor groups — said the amendment as drafted risked eroding union distribution jobs and could invite large out‑of‑state or nonunion manufacturers to exploit any perceived openings. Alfredo Alonso for the Nevada Beer Wholesalers Association said the three‑tier system was at the core of the current marketplace and warned that overly broad taproom allowances could be used by larger manufacturers to expand retail footprints.

Clarifying details recorded in testimony: Forest (representing craft brewers) said brewpub production limits remain in statute as the industry’s defining control: “we, as brewpubs, can make 40,000 barrels annually. In addition, 20,000 barrels, but that has to leave the state of Nevada. And we are capped at 5,000 barrels annually to sell at retail.” Watts and others reiterated that taprooms currently operate by buying product from wholesalers and that the amendment intends to codify that status quo while permitting certain clarifications and new limited shipping privileges.

What’s next: The sponsor said conversations with distributors, unions and other stakeholders were ongoing and that he expected additional technical changes to the amendment in the days after the hearing. No formal committee vote was recorded in the transcript.

Ending: Supporters characterized AB404 as a targeted modernization to help Nevada craft brewers compete and market their products, while opponents urged further safeguards to protect wholesaler roles and union jobs. The committee heard extensive oral testimony from both industry owners and labor representatives and kept the record open for continued negotiation.","Lawmakers heard testimony on Assembly Bill 404, a sponsor‑amended measure that would clarify how Nevada brewpubs and taprooms may operate, codify limits on production and distribution through the existing three‑tier system, and allow certain direct‑to‑consumer shipments to buyers outside Nevada.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers consider AB448 to curb alleged anti‑competitive practices by vision benefit managers

Committee hears bill to create Nevada 'fair plan' for homeowners and habitational insurance amid rising nonrenewals

Assembly committee hears changes to Nevada brewpub rules, including limited out‑of‑state shipping and clarified taproom rules