WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 343

Makes revisions relating to health care. (BDR 40-988)

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Steve Yeager

AB 343 requires hospitals in Nevada to publish standard charges and shoppable services, report facility fees, and curb debt collection for noncompliance.

Approved by the Governor. Chapter 247.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 343

AB 343 — Summary (BDR 40-988)

Status: Approved by the Governor (Chaptered 2025). Introduced: Jan 29, 2025.
Subject: Hospital price transparency, facility-fee reporting, and medical‑debt collection practices.

Purpose / Intent

AB 343 codifies and strengthens federal hospital price‑transparency requirements in Nevada law, increases state oversight of hospitals’ published price data (including facility fees), and limits hospitals’ ability to collect medical debt when they are out of compliance. The stated policy goals are to make hospital pricing accessible and comparable for patients, reduce surprise charges and medical debt, and provide enforcement tools at the state level.

Key provisions

  • Price transparency requirements

    • Hospitals must compile, publish, and annually update a list of their standard charges for all items and services (machine‑readable format or equivalent).
    • Hospitals must provide a consumer‑friendly list of “shoppable services” (or maintain an online price‑estimator tool) and indicate federally designated shoppable services they do not provide.
    • Lists must be published on the hospital’s most prominent public website and meet technical publication requirements.

  • Facility‑fee reporting

    • Hospitals must annually report facility fees charged for outpatient services at off‑campus facilities to the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
    • DHHS must publish these facility‑fee reports on a public website.

  • Medical‑debt collection protections & consumer remedies

    • Hospitals are prohibited from certain debt‑collection actions (e.g., referral to collections, filing civil actions, reporting to credit agencies) to collect medical debt that accrued while the hospital was not in compliance with the transparency rules.
    • Knowingly taking prohibited collection actions is treated as a deceptive trade practice under Nevada law (NRS Chapter 598).
    • Aggrieved medical debtors may file a claim with the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the Attorney General’s Office. The Governor’s Consumer Health Advocate must assist consumers in filing claims.
    • If the Bureau rules for the consumer, the hospital must extinguish the charge and refund any payments.

  • Pre‑collection consumer notices

    • Before taking any collection action, certain health‑care entities must provide the patient an itemized statement of the debt and provide receipts for payments.

  • State enforcement and process

    • DHHS is required to monitor compliance, accept complaints, investigate, audit hospital websites, and impose administrative penalties and corrective procedures for violations.
    • Some investigatory materials and complaints are treated as confidential during initial stages.

Who is affected

  • Directly: hospitals (including hospital parents/subsidiaries and affiliated entities), hospital‑affiliated outpatient facilities, health‑care entities that collect medical debt.
  • Beneficiaries: patients and medical debtors in Nevada (greater price information, protections against collection for noncompliance).
  • Government: DHHS (monitoring/reporting), Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, Governor’s Consumer Health Advocate.
  • Others: payers and consumers who rely on published negotiated rates; the hospital/healthcare industry (compliance costs and potential liability).

Procedural/timeline notes & context

  • AB 343 implements state‑level enforcement and consumer remedies in addition to federal CMS rules (45 C.F.R. §§180.20, 180.40–180.60).
  • Legislative history shows multiple committee amendments and two reprints before final enrollment. The bill passed both houses and was presented to the Governor; approved and chaptered in 2025.
  • Background data cited during hearings: compliance with federal price‑transparency rules has been uneven in Nevada (reports indicating roughly 35% full compliance in a November 2024 study), which motivated stronger state enforcement.

Stakeholder positions (summary)

  • Support: patient‑advocacy groups, physicians, Families USA, United States of Care — citing improved affordability, planning, and accountability.
  • Opposition / concerns: Nevada Hospital Association and Consumer Data Industry Association — citing federal preemption, operational burden, limited consumer value of “standard charges,” risk of litigation, and potentially excessive penalties.

This summary highlights the bill’s core obligations, enforcement path, and intended consumer protections. For full operative language, consult the enrolled/chaptered statute or the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau’s bill files.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.