Nevada DMV outlines modernization plan and seeks cleanup of medical-code language in AB20

The Department of Motor Vehicles told the Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure on Feb. 20 that it is continuing a multi‑year transformation to move most services online while maintaining in‑person options and that it needs statutory cleanups and budget flexibility to complete the work.

The presentation was led by Angela Smith Lamb, deputy director of the Nevada DMV, and Sean Seever, deputy administrator and legislative liaison. Seever told the committee that the DMV completes roughly 8,000,000 transactions a year — about 28,000 per business day — and operates 18 field offices. He said the department’s vacancy rate has fallen to about 5 percent after pay increases enacted last session.

Why it matters: DMV revenue and operational choices affect highway funding, county distributions and how quickly Nevadans can get everyday services. The agency said modernization will reduce in‑office demand and give customers more online options, but some upgrades require statutory or budget authority.

Seever described AB20 as a DMV “housekeeping” bill that would do two main things: clarify that DMV may print numeric medical codes on the back of driver licenses and IDs to work with a medical symbol on the front, and allow the department flexibility to use other carriers (for example UPS/FedEx) or electronic notices rather than only U.S. Mail for insurance‑verification mailings. "We are not tracking people. We don't share people's medical information," Seever said in closing, adding the medical indicator is voluntary and the code is a numeric lookup used by first responders and law enforcement.

Supporters including the Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities and the Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association said the code is a practical safety tool for people with conditions such as epilepsy or diabetes who voluntarily choose the indicator. The council’s executive director, Catherine Nielsen, testified that the feature has helped her family and that she had no concerns about the department’s plan to restore the code.

Opponents at the hearing raised privacy and security concerns. Multiple speakers in opposition asked whether DMV maintains a separate database, whether HIPAA protections apply, and whether voluntary reporting could become mandatory. Martin Heffner of DMV explained that a confidential physician form and physician attestation are required to add a medical code; the code is based on an ICD‑9/ICD‑10 numeric diagnosis and the form is retained by DMV staff. Heffner said the program has been in place since 2005 and is voluntary.

Other items the DMV described: the department said it has implemented almost all required IT changes from the prior session (all but one and a half bills), added online complaint submission and document upload for out‑of‑state and first‑time registrations, modernized appointment scheduling and its contact center, and is launching a revamped DMV website next week. The agency reported annual revenue collection of about $1.8 billion in FY24 and noted that roughly 46 percent of its funding comes from highway funds while more than 53 percent comes from fees and other revenues. DMV said about 6 percent of fees are available for operations and that highway‑fund appropriation caps have been at 22 percent historically but were temporarily set to 27 percent to accommodate transformation costs; DMV has submitted a budget draft request (BDR) to continue the 27 percent cap for the near term.

Seever also previewed bills and BDRs linked to the department: AB20 (the housekeeping/medical code bill), SB22 (technical clarification on fuel tax payment timing), SB80 (changes from the Compliance Enforcement Division on stolen vehicles and emissions tampering), and other budget BDRs to extend the highway‑fund cap and rename some divisions. He noted an emission certificate fee proposal to raise diesel and gasoline certificate fees from $6 to $7 to respond to pollution‑control budget pressures caused in part by fewer gasoline/diesel vehicles and statutory exemptions for new vehicles.

The committee took testimony and asked DMV staff to clarify data‑security safeguards and the voluntary nature of the medical indicator. DMV staff said there are no current plans to make the medical indicator mandatory, that the numeric code is not a plain‑text medical diagnosis on the card, and that the records associated with the medical indicator are maintained in DMV systems accessible only to authorized staff. The DMV also said it is not aware of a department‑level data breach during the presenting administrator’s tenure.

Looking ahead: Committee members did not vote during the presentation. DMV staff said they will work with stakeholders and the committee on AB20 and related budget matters as the measures move through scheduled hearings.