Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Technology Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers changes to health technology assessment to help rare and life‑threatening cases
Summary
SB 5,915 would revise the state's health technology assessment program to prioritize technologies with Medicare coverage or national guideline support, set timelines, and allow broader evidence review for rare or life‑threatening conditions; patients, educators and rare‑disease advocates offered supportive testimony.
The Senate Health and Long Term Care Committee heard Senate Bill 5,915 on Jan. 16. The measure would update the Health Technology Assessment Program’s prioritization and review criteria, give preference to technologies established or recommended by Medicare or national expert guidelines, and create deadlines for the health technology clinical committee and HCA publication processes.
Sponsor Senator Harris described the bill as a short, practicable update "to put us more on a pathway" to better evaluate technologies. Jared Mason Geer (Washington Education Association) testified in strong support and called the bill a modest but necessary step to address current barriers within HCA that impede recommended treatments for public employees. Multiple witnesses — including a retired pharmacy professor whose husband uses the FDA‑approved Optune GEO device for glioblastoma and rare‑disease families — urged allowing a broader range of clinical evidence (including non‑RCT designs) when assessing treatments for rare or life‑threatening conditions.
Lisa Woodard described Optune GEO as an FDA‑approved device that improves survival for glioblastoma patients but noted it was not a covered benefit for Washington public employees, creating disparity. Advocates asked the committee to ensure the clinical committee can consider all valid trial evidence and rare‑disease data when recommending coverage.
The hearing closed after public testimony; no committee vote was recorded. The bill would not itself appropriate funds; committee staff noted a fiscal note had been requested.
Provenance: topic introduced SEG 255; topic closed SEG 496.
