Nevada committee hears proposal to expand access to electromagnetic brain‑pulse treatment for PTSD, addiction and gambling disorder

Assembly Bill 304, which would create a pilot to expand access to electromagnetic brain‑pulse (EMBP) treatment for post‑traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorder and gambling disorder, was the subject of a lengthy hearing before the Nevada Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services on [date of hearing].

Assemblymember Venise Karas (Assembly District 10) introduced the bill and said the concept is to expand access rather than to begin a basic safety study because, she said, federal agencies have already assessed device safety. "This amendment shifts the program's focus to expanding access to EMBP to treat people with post traumatic stress, substance use disorder, and gambling disorder," Karas told the committee.

The bill drew detailed technical and patient‑experience testimony from Judy Kosterman, cofounder of the Brain Health Leadership Foundation, who described the EMBP workflow as a two‑step medical protocol: EEG‑based individualized assessment followed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) tailored to a patient’s EEG fingerprint. "This just brings another tool to the box that works from the medical side that can actually change the brain," Kosterman said, adding the protocol is nonpharmaceutical and noninvasive.

Why it matters: proponents told the committee the treatment can fill gaps in current behavioral and pharmaceutical care for a range of neuropsychiatric conditions and could improve access to care for veterans, first responders and people in recovery. Supporters said some payers are already reimbursing the protocol for specific plans in Nevada. Opponents did not appear and no formal committee vote occurred.

Supporting evidence and pilot work Kosterman said the approach uses an EEG cap to map a patient’s brain‑frequency "fingerprint," then feeds that analysis into a TMS device to "nudge" neurons toward a more normative firing pattern. She described published clinical trials, a Department of Defense trial treating veterans with PTSD and several local pilot efforts: a Washoe County specialty‑court pilot that has completed data collection, a private grant to treat Reno first responders that is underway, and two licensed clinics in Nevada (Reno and Las Vegas). Kosterman told the committee some trials reported rapid clinical improvement — she cited a randomized placebo‑controlled PTSD trial in veterans that delivered daily sessions for two weeks and reported large symptom reductions which prompted the institutional review board to offer the active treatment to the placebo arm.

Payers and access Testimony noted the existence of CPT billing codes and that Prominence Health Plan (a regional association health plan) has begun reimbursing the protocol for its association members. Kosterman and supporters said broader third‑party reimbursement (including Medicaid and Medicare) is a critical barrier to patient access and that a Nevada pilot could help generate state‑specific evidence to encourage broader payment. Several committee members asked for more peer‑reviewed data specific to the populations Nevada intends to treat, and presenters agreed to provide study references and local pilot data to staff.

Public testimony A number of residents and providers offered personal accounts supporting AB304. Corrado De Gasparis, executive chairman and CEO of Comstock Inc., described his own experience with the protocol and said he has been abstinent from alcohol for more than four years after treatment. Jason Rich, a former Navy SEAL, described traumatic brain injury and PTSD symptoms and said the protocol gave him the "best sleep" since military service. Providers and industry advocates — including the Nevada Hospital Association and the Vegas Chamber — testified in support and asked the committee to consider how data from a pilot could help develop a Nevada clinical and payment pathway.

Committee questions and next steps Committee members asked about the strength and scope of existing evidence, device approvals and the appropriate role of a policy committee versus a budget committee in funding pilots. Kosterman said the devices (EEG and TMS) have FDA clearance or approval in their marketed indications and that the current effort is to scale a technology‑driven protocol and test it for the targeted indications named in the bill. Committee members requested more detailed outcome data tied to the bill’s specific target populations. Chair Tracy Brown May noted that financial feasibility would be reviewed by other committees if the policy committee advances the measure. The hearing closed without a vote and the committee invited the bill sponsor and presenters to provide additional materials to staff.

Ending No formal committee action was recorded at the hearing. Supporters pledged to provide clinical trial reports and pilot results to the committee staff; members requested population‑specific evidence before making a policy recommendation.