Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb317 Workers Compensation Omnibus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stakeholders present broad worker-compromise package to Senate committee; bill would alter provider lists, mental-health providers, audits and formularies
Summary
Supporters and industry representatives described a negotiated omnibus overhaul to Nevada's workers' compensation statutes in Senate Bill 317, including changes to provider lists, recognition of certain licensed mental-health providers, a closed prescription formulary, an updated payroll cap for premiums and administrative fine timing.
Supporters of Senate Bill 317 told the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor the measure is the product of extensive stakeholder negotiation and would make targeted changes to Nevada's workers' compensation statute.
"The Nevada workers' compensation system is near over a hundred years old, dating back to 1911," Jason Mills told the committee as he introduced the bill on behalf of the Nevada Justice Association. Mills described the proposal as a negotiated package addressing multiple topics, and he said several extensive provisions were removed or narrowed after stakeholders flagged problems.
Major elements described at the hearing included:
- Provider lists and panels: The bill would tighten accountability for insurer-maintained provider panels. Insurers would be able to review and refresh lists every three years but would warrant that doctors listed will accept and treat claimants for listed body parts; if lists fail to meet statutory minimums, claimants could choose another qualified provider. Dalton Hooks and other presenters said the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) would publish insurer panels in a uniform, searchable digital format and that the DIR's role would be administrative — to receive and publish certified panels provided by insurers and TPAs.
- Mental-health providers and stress claims: The bill would allow licensed psychologists, licensed clinical professional counselors and licensed marriage and family therapists to treat accepted mental-stress injury claims; it would not change the legal standard for qualifying a mental-stress claim, supporters said. "Social workers provide 60% of mental health care in the nation," Dr. Eugenia Weiss noted later in a related social-work hearing; for workers' comp the change aims to expand access where few psychiatrists practice.
- Prescription formulary: John Noble, representing Employers Insurance, described a provision directing the Division to adopt an evidence-based closed formulary to contain drug costs; he said prescription drugs account for "about 14% of every single workers' compensation claim." Noble said the formulary would include grandfathering, emergency exemptions and a mechanism to challenge coverage for medically necessary drugs not on the list.
- Payroll cap and self-insured groups: Terry Chambers (Pro Group Management) urged updating Nevada's payroll cap for premium calculations, currently $36,000 per year per employee, and indexing it to the state's average weekly wage so the cap need not be revisited every session. Chambers said underwriters would adjust rates so that increasing the payroll cap would not raise total premiums but would spread them more predictably.
- Administrative fines and audits: The bill would limit the duration of escalating administrative fines for ministerial violations by resetting the period after three years, a change proponents said would align with other enforcement regimes. Proponents also proposed clarifications to audit timing and the State Treasurer's disbursement timing for subsequent-injury account reimbursements, including a sunset that would make certain newly filed claims ineligible for reimbursement after Sept. 30, 2025.
At the hearing, multiple public-safety and labor organizations — including firefighters, police associations and unions — voiced support for the negotiated package, citing improved access and clearer rules to return injured workers to duty. Opposing or cautious testimony came from some contractors and associations concerned about the payroll-cap timing and potential rate effects; the Division of Industrial Relations testified neutrally and requested further discussion on technical provisions, such as the electronic submission format for provider lists and the interaction between the bill's three-year reset and the DIV's five-year audit cadence.
No formal committee vote or final action on SB 317 was recorded during the hearing; presenters and committee staff agreed to continue discussions and to refine language in follow-up drafting.
