Committee reviews bill to require sign-language access in Nevada health care settings

Assembly Bill 395, sponsored by Assemblywoman Erica Roth, would require medical facilities to offer American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting when requested or when a patient who uses ASL presents for care. The bill directs facilities to make a good‑faith effort to provide an in-person interpreter and to document attempts; when an in-person interpreter is not available, facilities must provide adequate video remote interpreting (VRI).

“Communication in a medical setting is crucial for making sure that the provision of health care is as effective as possible,” said Assemblywoman Erica Roth in opening the bill presentation. Testimony from members of Nevada’s deaf and hard-of-hearing community described repeated failures to secure interpreters during emergency and inpatient care and said inadequate communication had harmed patients’ understanding of diagnoses and follow-up instructions.

Shelly Fried, who said she was admitted after a bicycle accident, described waiting two hours for an interpreter and being offered a mobile VRI device that she found impractical while her arm was in a sling. She told the committee she was “forced to write” to staff and later had to appeal a hospital billing determination. “I felt like I was a patient in a third world country,” Fried said.

Eric Wilcox, chair of the Nevada Commission for Persons Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing, told the committee the commission repeatedly hears stories of missed appointments, inadequate VRI equipment, and patients discharged without understanding care instructions. The commission supports the bill’s requirements that hospitals provide qualified on-site ASL interpreters when necessary, limit sole reliance on VRI for critical medical situations, and maintain appropriate guidance and documentation.

State staff described an existing interpreter registry maintained by the Aging and Disability Services Division (the Nevada Interpreter/ CART registry) that vets credentials and lists registered interpreters. Adrienne Navarro, who oversees the Communication Access Services program, said the registry exists “to evaluate the credentials and education and qualifications for interpreters” and that providers typically contact interpreter agencies to secure services.

Committee members asked about workforce capacity, service in rural counties, use of VRI as a fallback, and reimbursement for small or specialty practices that must bring interpreters in from other communities. Roth and stakeholders said the bill’s amendment will specify when an in-person interpreter is required, allow VRI when appropriate, and include a population threshold intended to reflect interpreter availability; discussion in the hearing referenced a population cap figure that was corrected during questioning (the sponsor said 25,000 in the amendment text and that the figure remained under discussion).

Hospitals and provider groups testified in neutral with the sponsor’s amendment and said they want to work with the sponsor and the deaf community to finalize workable requirements, training, signage and staffing approaches. The Nevada Hospital Association and several hospital systems said they were neutral to supportive once amendments addressing emergency‑medical‑services and practical implementation were drafted.

Ending: The committee closed the AB395 hearing after testimony. Sponsors and stakeholders committed to continued negotiations on population thresholds, enforcement language and how to make VRI reliably available and usable; technical and enforcement details remain under discussion and may change in later drafts.