Committee hears bill to cap FMLA certification fees at $25, supporters say cap would aid working families

CARSON CITY — The Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee on March 11 heard Assembly Bill 305, a measure to limit how much health-care providers may charge an employee to complete employer-required family and medical leave or other leave-of-absence certification forms.

Assemblymember Elaine Marzola, sponsor of AB 305, said the bill and a conceptual amendment mirror prior legislation considered in 2023 and aim to reduce a recurring out-of-pocket expense that workers report when applying for FMLA or employer leave. Marzola said providers in the Las Vegas Valley have charged as much as $100 or more to complete a form beyond the cost of an office visit. The proposed amendment circulated at the hearing would prohibit providers from charging any fee to complete the certification form if the provider has seen the patient in the prior three years, and would cap fees at $25 if the provider has not seen the patient in that timeframe.

Presenters stressed the federal Family and Medical Leave Act is unpaid leave that often requires a provider certification; because the FMLA does not cap what a provider may charge to complete certification paperwork, employees sometimes face a separate, material fee to access leave they are statutorily entitled to. The sponsor noted that a similar bill passed the Legislature in 2023 (AB 437) but was vetoed by the governor, who said such fees better reflect providers’ cost structures and staffing and are not appropriate for a fixed legislative cap.

UFCW Local 711 and multiple labor and coalition groups testified in strong support. Union representatives and numerous callers said workers should not be required to pay a separate certification fee on top of office visit co-pays and other medical expenses in order to apply for job-protected leave. Testimony from union members included personal stories, including cancer treatment and caregiving, where an additional paperwork fee would have posed a material hardship. Supporters argued staff in many provider offices already complete insurance and administrative forms on behalf of patients and that certification forms are typically short (often two pages) and should not require an extra charge beyond usual administrative work when the patient is an established, continuing patient.

Committee members asked for practical information about the administrative burden. Sponsor witnesses supplied sample certification forms in the hearing record; Jessica Ferrato and UFCW witnesses said a completed form is typically about two pages, and that for established patients much of the clinical information is in the chart. Members asked whether providers bill insurers for similar forms and whether standard office staff perform most of the administrative work; advocates said the fees are separate cash fees charged to patients and that staff routinely complete other administrative paperwork without separate fees.

No formal committee vote occurred at the hearing. Supporters urged the committee to approve the $25 cap (and the zero-fee rule for patients seen within three years) to reduce a financial barrier to leave; opponents were limited in the hearing record and no major medical-provider association witness presented opposing testimony at the committee table during the hearing. The sponsor said the conceptual amendment aligns AB 305 with the earlier 2023 reprint and asked the committee to consider the bill.

The record shows broad labor support from UFCW Local 711, the Nevada State AFL-CIO and other unions and public-sector employee representatives; written and oral testimony emphasized hardship stories and the administrative comparability of certification forms to other insurance paperwork completed by offices. The governor’s prior veto of a similar measure was noted by both sponsor and supporters as a political hurdle the bill would face in subsequent stages.