Committee holds AB448 after late amendments on vision-insurance rules; work session set for next day

Assemblyman Greg Koenig presented AB448 to the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services on May 13, saying the measure had been pared back substantially after negotiations with stakeholders. Koenig described the final proposal as focusing on three core issues relating to provider contracts, plan conduct and transparency.

Rick McCann of the American Optometric Association summarized the remaining provisions, describing the bill as an unfair‑trade‑practices measure that would, among other things, prohibit vision plans from controlling the professional judgment of an optometrist or seeking recoupment from a provider when the plan’s enrollment data was in error. McCann said the legislation would also require plans to provide a copy of their manuals or policies to participating providers and would make unlawful any contract provisions that violate state law.

Supporters appearing in person included organized labor and practicing optometrists; Dr. Kenneth Kopolow, an optometrist who practices in Las Vegas, urged committee members to consider whether vision plans have contributed to rising eyewear prices. Representatives of vision insurers and vision‑benefit managers testified neutral or opposed; the National Association of Vision Care Plans registered a soft oppose pending review of the late amendment language. VSP Vision Care and the Nevada Association of Health Plans both said they were neutral while reviewing the mock‑up and proposed amendment.

Adam Plain of the Nevada Division of Insurance raised several technical drafting points, noting that some mock‑up language touched on statutory chapters ordinarily outside the division’s usual purview and that the bill’s draft included a definition for “vision benefit discount plan,” which historically is not regulated as insurance.

Committee members and stakeholders reported a late-stage compromise amendment that would delete several contested sections of the mock-up and instead place an applicability requirement into the contracts section so that existing and future provider contracts must conform to the bill’s provisions upon passage. Because that revised language was circulated late, the committee recessed briefly and then agreed to schedule a work session the following day so members and stakeholders could review the text.

Action: The committee declined to take final action on AB448 during the May 13 hearing. Members agreed to a conceptual, committee-supported amendment (to be uploaded) and scheduled a work session for the next day to review the formal amendment text and allow stakeholders time to respond.

Ending: With stakeholders and insurers reviewing the late amendment, the committee deferred final action to permit additional deliberation and formal amendment drafting.