Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Access Speech Therapy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require insurers to cover stuttering treatment for children; supporters urge broader coverage
Summary
Assembly Bill 169, introduced by Assemblyman Steve Yeager, would require a range of health plans in Nevada to cover speech-language pathology for stuttering among people under 18 and to prohibit insurers from imposing annual-visit caps or cause-based coverage limits.
Assembly Bill 169, presented by Assemblyman Steve Yeager, would require specified health insurance policies and plans to cover speech-language pathology treatment for stuttering for people under age 18 and would bar insurers from imposing a yearly visit cap, limiting benefits based on the cause of stuttering, or subjecting the service to routine medical-management limits specified in the bill.
Sponsor and presenters described the bill as narrowly targeted to remove coverage barriers that prevent children who stutter from accessing evidence-based therapy. "Stuttering is a health care issue," said Cheryl Larson, a speech-language pathologist at the University of Nevada, Reno. Larson and other clinicians told the committee that stuttering has neurophysiological bases, carries substantial social and emotional effects and frequently requires specialized, longitudinal therapy that many general SLPs do not provide. "If health insurance can cover occupational therapy, physical therapy, mental-health therapy, why is it a far leap to have it cover speech-language therapy for something like this?" Larson asked.
Personal testimony underscored access problems. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, a former NBA player who stutters and who has become an advocate, said he had been mocked and that advocacy motivated him to bring attention to the issue. Esteban Perez, a college student who stutters, described stopping therapy in high school and later seeking costly private services; he told the committee, "No one should have to go through what I had to experience." Supporters argued that early treatment can reduce lifetime social, educational and employment harms.
Coverage scope and federal funding: the sponsor said the bill is intended to apply to both private and public plans and repeats similar provisions across multiple statutory chapters to capture the state's varied insurance frameworks. Adam Plain of the Nevada Division of Insurance said the agency is neutral on the bill and provided analysis in the committee record; Plain said the division does not currently view the bill as triggering federal defrayal (federal Medicaid defrayal) but provided materials for the committee's consideration.
Age and amendment discussions: committee members asked why the bill currently limits coverage to people under 18. Yeager and witnesses said they selected that age to begin with a narrower, more politically attainable scope, and they were open to amendments. Several members suggested extending coverage to older ages—one member proposed 26 to match parental insurance eligibility—and the sponsor said he would consider friendly amendments to broaden the age range.
Who testified: in addition to Yeager, testimony for AB 169 included Michael Kidd-Gilchrist (advocate), Cheryl Larson (UNR speech pathology), Esteban Perez (student), Jacqueline Nguyen (Nevada State Medical Association), Ryan McInerney (Nevada State University clinics), Shauna Ross (Nevada Speech Language Hearing Association), Dr. Sheri Bailey (Nevada State University faculty), and public comments from clinicians and private-practice providers describing denied visits and the cost burden on families.
No vote was taken at the hearing; the sponsor said he expects to work on amendments and further stakeholder conversations before the bill moves forward.
