Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Provider Contracts Insurance Communications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers limits on public notice of provider contract terminations
Summary
Substitute Senate Bill 5,579 would restrict public communications about non‑cause provider contract terminations until 45 days before the termination date, require OIC‑approved notice templates and allow civil penalties; supporters say the measure will reduce consumer anxiety caused by premature notices, carriers and hospitals largely support it.
Substitute Senate Bill 5,579 would prohibit health carriers and health care providers or facilities from making public statements to enrollees or the public about an intended termination of a provider contract without cause until 45 days before the termination date, unless a legal disclosure is required or the termination is already publicly required.
Kim Weidner, committee staff, summarized current practice: carriers file provider contracts with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) and OIC rules require 60 days’ notice between contracting parties before terminating without cause; the federal No Surprises Act also provides continuity-of-care protections for certain patients. Weidner said the bill directs OIC to develop standard template language for notices and requires OIC review and approval of notices before use.
Nico Janssen of the OIC testified in support and said the agency sees many notices of potential contract terminations and that premature public messages can "cause anxiety and uncertainty" among patients even when disputes resolve before termination. Lisa Thatcher of the Washington State Hospital Association and representatives of insurers including Premera and Regence (testifying as Regions/Regence BlueShield in the hearing) said they support the bill as a way to create consistent timelines and language to reduce consumer confusion and public pressure during negotiations.
Christine Brewer of Premera Blue Cross testified that a trend of using public communications and media during negotiations had placed members"right in the middle of those negotiations," and insurers said the bill would limit that negotiating tactic. Staff described potential civil penalties up to $100 per day per individual for noncompliance and authority for OIC to refer patterns of unresolved violations to disciplining authorities.
Committee members did not take a final vote during the hearing; public testimony was closed and the committee moved to other matters.
Supporters framed SSB 5,579 as consumer-protection and process-stability legislation; opponents were not prominent in the hearing record and insurers and hospitals reported ongoing negotiations about amendment language.
