Nevada committee hears bill to license genetic counselors, proponents say licensure could improve access and insurer reimbursement

Senator Roberta Lang, a Las Vegas lawmaker, introduced Senate Bill 189 to the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee as a measure to establish licensure for genetic counselors in Nevada.

The bill, proponents said, aims to ensure “high quality and safe genetic counseling services” and to reduce barriers to insurer reimbursement for master’s-trained, board-certified genetic counselors. "By creating a license, we hope that health plans will reimburse for services provided by our genetic counselor and all of those across the state," Samantha Barnes, director of legislative affairs and operations for Career Nevada, told the committee. Barnes described the proposal as conforming with model licensure language used in other states.

Supporters told the committee genetic counseling is used across specialties — including oncology, prenatal care and cardiology — to interpret genetic test results, help patients weigh risks and guide family testing and preventive steps. "Certified genetic counselors are health care providers with significant training and expertise in human and medical genetics, patient education, and psychosocial counseling," Sarah Pierson A. Miller, president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, said in support of SB189. Pierson A. Miller also stated that genetic counseling education is obtained through a two‑year master’s program.

Medical providers described clinical scenarios where genetic counseling influenced care decisions. "Genetic counseling not only provides the details of the family history ... but it helps us make informed decisions about testing," said Dr. Parikh, a medical oncologist and practice president at Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada. He and other clinicians said recognizing genetic counselors as licensed providers would help patients and families access targeted testing and treatments.

Patient testimony underscored the practical stakes proponents raised. Jean Ann Hollahan, who described herself as a four‑time cancer patient, said she did not receive genetic counseling early in her family’s cancer history and later tested positive for a BRCA2 mutation. "If I had received genetic counseling alongside the testing, I would have better understood the long term implication of cancer and what that meant for me, and not just for me, but for my family," Hollahan told the committee.

Proponents also cited payer behavior as a motivating factor: testimony described a master’s‑trained counselor hired at a cancer center who was denied reimbursement by some insurers because the state lacks licensure that would classify counselors as recognized providers. Samantha Barnes emphasized the bill is not an insurance mandate to cover tests; rather, it creates a license so counselors can be recognized by payers.

Stakeholders described the bill’s structure: it adds genetic counselors to the definition of health care providers, defines genetic counseling, sets licensing and board‑regulation provisions, establishes advisory board composition and continuing education requirements, and creates a fee schedule and disciplinary processes. Barnes noted a “friendly amendment” would clarify that other practitioners qualified to provide genetic counseling are not restricted, would adjust continuing education timelines to match other states, and would modify advisory board composition.

Regulatory and insurer representatives raised procedural and technical points. Adam Plaine of the Nevada Division of Insurance said the division had reviewed the bill and viewed the changes to Title 57 as minor; the division submitted written testimony noting no objection. Plaine also pointed out that similar licensure measures exist in 36 states, including neighboring states named during testimony.

No formal vote on SB189 was recorded during the hearing; the measure proceeded as a public hearing with proponents and neutral testimony. Supporters asked the committee to advance the bill so that license requirements would create a legal standard for who may present themselves as a genetic counselor and to reduce the risk that untrained individuals provide potentially harmful guidance.

Observers and witnesses asked the committee to ensure language does not unintentionally limit other qualified providers and to align continuing education, advisory board membership, and confidentiality provisions with existing federal and professional privacy standards. The bill’s sponsors said they would work with stakeholders on clarifying amendments.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on SB189 after testimony from clinicians, professional associations, patients and payer representatives and then opened a hearing on a separate bill. No committee action or final vote on SB189 was recorded in the transcript of this session.