Senate committee hears bill to codify federal hospital price‑transparency rules in Nevada

Assembly Bill 343, introduced to the Nevada Senate Committee on Health and Human Services by Assemblyman Steve Yeager (Assembly District 9), would codify federal hospital price‑transparency requirements into Nevada law, require annual hospital reporting to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), prohibit collection of medical debt tied to noncompliant charges, and authorize state enforcement actions.

Yeager told the committee AB 343 is "a critical piece of legislation that will bring much needed transparency to health care pricing in Nevada and ensure that patients have the information they need to make informed decisions about their medical care." He said federal rules from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have not achieved full compliance and that a state law would permit local enforcement and reporting.

Taylor Volk, a legislative intern who walked the committee through the bill, said the measure would require hospitals to post machine‑readable files with standard charges, provide a consumer‑friendly display of at least 300 shoppable services, and submit corrective action plans when noncompliant. Volk clarified during testimony that the bill, as negotiated, does not create an individual private right of action; instead, noncompliance is designated a deceptive trade practice that the attorney general could enforce.

Supporters at the hearing described patient experiences and urged passage. Carissa Pierce of Children's Advocacy Alliance said cost transparency helps families plan and avoid surprise bills. Dr. Hiton Norhatan, a stage‑3 cancer patient, recounted receiving a bill for roughly $117,000 and urged the committee to act. National consumer groups including Families USA and United States of Care testified in favor, stressing that hospital prices are a major driver of medical debt and that state enforcement can raise compliance.

Hospital systems and trade groups opposed the bill as written. Jesse Wadhams of the Nevada Hospital Association said Nevada already requires public posting of hospital charges under state law (NRS 439.270) and that AB 343 would add "overly complicated" mandates, including data reporting by tax ID, expanded penalties and possible cancellation of medical debt. Several hospital speakers — including representatives of Dignity Health St. Rose Dominican, HCA, Valley Health, Renown and North Vista — said they support transparency but urged alignment with federal CMS rules to avoid duplicative operational burdens.

Colorado lawmakers who helped craft a similar law in that state — former Colorado Senate President Steven Fenberg and former House leader Patrick Neville (both joining by video) — said their law raised compliance rapidly and that local engagement, not immediate fines, led hospitals to improve data quality. Fenberg said compliance in Colorado moved from the low 20s to more than 70 percent after the state law and outreach. Neville described using posted prices to place care for his daughter at a lower‑cost facility.

Committee members asked about differences between the bill and CMS rules, the frequency of required updates (the bill would require annual updates), the seven‑year retention period for posted files, and enforcement mechanics. Proponents said the bill intentionally mirrors the federal rule so hospitals complying with CMS would be compliant with Nevada law, and that the state enforcement mechanism complements federal action.

No committee vote on AB 343 was recorded in the transcript. Sponsors said they remain willing to negotiate technical amendments. The committee proceeded to other agenda items after the hearing.