Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Finance hears bill to expand who may assess autism and to clarify insurance coverage
Summary
Senate Bill 257, which would broaden which health care providers may assess children for autism spectrum disorder and require certain insurers to cover diagnoses performed within a provider’s scope of practice, was heard by the Senate Committee on Finance.
Senate Bill 257, which would revise Nevada law related to assessment and insurance coverage for autism spectrum disorder, drew testimony Tuesday in the Nevada Senate Committee on Finance.
Senator Marilyn Dondero Loop (D–Clark), sponsor of SB257, told the committee the bill modifies definitions of “provider of health care,” removes prescriptive statewide protocols and permits any health care provider acting within his or her scope of practice to conduct an assessment for autism spectrum disorder. The bill also removes requirements that certain insurers require specific provider types to make diagnoses and instead would require plans to cover a diagnosis and treatment if performed by any health‑care provider acting within scope.
The sponsor said the bill responds to access barriers that delay diagnosis and early intervention. Brian Hager, president and CEO of the Ackerman Autism / Granite Gift Autism Foundation, and multiple parents testified in support, describing long waits for diagnosis and the positive effects of early intervention. Parents and advocacy groups argued that permitting pediatricians and other qualified clinicians to identify and assess autism would accelerate the start of services and reduce long waiting lists for specialty clinics.
Several clinical groups raised concerns. The Nevada Psychological Association testified in opposition, saying the proposed language could allow assessments by providers without adequate autism‑specific training, increasing the risk of misdiagnosis and placing administrative burdens on the Aging and Disability Services Division (ADSD) and other state systems. Dr. Laurie Drucker, on behalf of the Nevada Psychological Association, said, “Fast and accurate diagnosis can be life changing; fast and incorrect diagnosis can be a tragedy.” The association proposed limiting diagnostic authority to providers acting within their scope and competency and urged amendments to specify required assessment tools.
A licensed speech‑language pathologist also testified about the importance of standardized assessment instruments and worried that allowing diagnosis based solely on in‑office observation could reduce diagnostic integrity. Supporters and bill sponsors said the bill includes references to early and periodic developmental screening and that some national organizations and clinicians support expanding provider types to increase timely access to services.
The sponsor told the committee an amendment is expected to clarify definitions. Several organizations and parents — including the Nevada chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Autism Coalition of Nevada, Families for Effective Autism Treatment and the Reno‑area Tribal and advocacy groups — offered support, saying early intervention produces better outcomes and that long diagnostic waits present a cost to families and the state.
Opponents urged more precise statutory language to define which providers may diagnose and to retain required standardized assessment instruments; bill advocates said they would work with stakeholders on amendments.
No committee action or formal vote occurred during the hearing.
