Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance Nondiscrimination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears bill to codify federal nondiscrimination protections in Nevada health law
Summary
Senate Bill 352, presented Thursday to the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, would add nondiscrimination protections in Nevada law mirroring federal Affordable Care Act protections to ensure people who purchase coverage on Nevada’s exchange are protected at the state level.
Senate Bill 352, presented Thursday to the Nevada Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor by Senator Melanie Scheibel (Senate District 9), would codify nondiscrimination protections in Nevada law that sponsors say mirror those in federal law now found in the Affordable Care Act.
“Those protections should generally apply here in the State of Nevada,” Scheibel told the committee, but she said state statutes did not currently include the full set of protections for people who buy plans on the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange. The bill would add protected characteristics — drawn from federal definitions and cited in testimony as including age, national origin, disability, gender, gender identity and expression — into multiple sections of Nevada Revised Statutes that govern health insurance coverage.
Nut graf: Sponsors argued that putting nondiscrimination language into state law gives Nevadans a stable, local backstop if federal enforcement or regulatory interpretation changes; supporters said the move protects access to care and prevents state‑level gaps in enforcement.
Supporters at the hearing included the Nevada State Medical Association and the Nevada Psychiatric Association, and Andre Wade of Silver State Equality, who said federal protections can shift with changes in administration and enforcement and that state codification would provide steadier protection for LGBTQ+ Nevadans.
Adam Plain of the Nevada Division of Insurance testified neutral and identified three drafting considerations for the committee and sponsors: (1) the bill uses the term “policy of health insurance,” which is broader than the defined term “health benefit plan” in NRS 687B.470 and may sweep in stand‑alone dental, vision, supplemental or indemnity policies the sponsor may not intend; (2) if age is treated as a protected characteristic for rating purposes in major medical health benefit plans, it may conflict with federal rating rules that allow age, geography and tobacco use as rating factors; and (3) a proposed Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) market stabilization rule (cited in testimony) implementing Executive Order 14187 could designate certain services as not part of essential health benefits, which in turn can trigger federal defrayal exposure for state‑mandated benefits.
Plain suggested the sponsor and the division continue technical discussions and said that if the committee enacts mandates not included in the state’s essential health benefit benchmark, Nevada could be liable for increased premium costs on Qualified Health Plans unless the benchmark is updated; he noted the division is working on a benchmark update and suggested an implementation delay as a possible remedy if the committee is concerned about federal defrayal exposure.
No vote occurred; sponsors said they would continue to work with stakeholders on technical language.
Ending: The committee closed the SB 352 hearing after technical questions and directed sponsors and the Division of Insurance to continue drafting discussions.
Speakers quoted above are drawn from testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor.
