Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance Stuttering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada committee hears bill to require insurers to cover stuttering treatment for children
Summary
A bill before the Senate Finance Committee would require many health plans to cover stuttering treatment for children and bar insurers from limiting visits or tying benefits to cause of the stutter; sponsor said the bill’s age limit was raised to 26 to align with the Affordable Care Act and a fiscal provider (PEP) was amended out.
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance Stuttering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assemblyman Steve Yeager (Assembly District 9) told the Senate Finance Committee that Assembly Bill 169 (second reprint) would require insurers to include treatment for stuttering for children and bar carriers from setting annual-visit limits to speech-language pathologists or conditioning benefits on the cause of stuttering.
The bill’s sponsor said the bill originally covered people up to age 18 but was amended to extend the age cap to 26 “to conform with the Affordable Care Act.” Yeager said an initial fiscal note from the Public Employees’ Plan (PEP) was removed after negotiations; he said PEP signaled it would try to provide coverage without a mandate and would continue discussions over the interim.
Supporters who testified included Sheila Bray of the University of Nevada, Reno, and Annie Vong on behalf of the Nevada Speech-Language Pathologist Association. No callers registered on the public line to testify for, against or neutrally on the bill during the hearing.
Committee members asked for clarification about PEP’s status; Yeager said PEP was omitted from the mandate but staff had received “very positive” communications from incoming PEP leadership who “think they can probably just do this anyway without any additional money.”
There was no formal committee vote recorded in the transcript of this hearing. The bill drew brief supportive testimony and limited questioning about the fiscal and implementation details; the sponsor indicated he would continue discussions with PEP during the interim.

