WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 272

Revises provisions relating to forensic medical examinations. (BDR 16-596)

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Melissa Hardy

Shifts forensic medical exam costs from counties to the state; DHHS reimburses facilities within 60 days, prevents billing victims, and requires privacy rules for reimbursement.

(No further action taken.)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 272

AB 272 (BDR 16-596) — Summary (forensic medical examinations)

Note on record: The legislative documents available include two different measures labeled AB 272 (one addressing heavy‑duty vehicle inspection and one addressing forensic medical examinations). This summary focuses on the forensic‑medical‑examination version (BDR 16‑596) described as “Revises provisions relating to forensic medical examinations,” introduced by Assemblymember Hardy.

Main purpose

Replace the current county‑payment model for forensic medical examinations with a state‑administered reimbursement process so that health care facilities are paid by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for costs of forensic exams, and victims are expressly protected from being billed.

Key provisions

  • Repeals provisions that required counties to pay hospitals for forensic medical examinations of sexual‑assault victims and for strangulation forensic exams in domestic‑violence cases.
  • Establishes that health care facilities must initially absorb forensic exam costs and may apply to DHHS for reimbursement.
  • DHHS responsibilities:
    • Accept and review reimbursement applications that include documentation of services rendered.
    • Reimburse facilities within 60 days after receiving a completed application.
    • Adopt regulations establishing application/review procedures that comply with privacy laws (including HIPAA) and defining the reimbursement amount; DHHS must review the reimbursement amount annually.
  • Prohibits health care facilities from directly charging victims for forensic medical examination costs.
  • Clarifies that filing a police report is not a prerequisite to receive a forensic medical examination.
  • Definitions (selected):
    • “Forensic medical examination” includes exams to obtain evidence from sexual‑assault victims and exams to assess and treat victims of domestic violence, strangulation, or certain human‑trafficking offenses.
    • “Health care facility” and victim classes reference existing NRS definitions (e.g., victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, strangulation, human trafficking).

Who is affected

  • Victims of sexual assault, domestic violence (including strangulation), and qualifying human‑trafficking offenses: improved access to exams without fear of billing or mandatory reporting.
  • Health care facilities and hospitals: must apply to DHHS for reimbursement rather than bill victims or expect county reimbursement; administrative burden of applying and complying with privacy regs.
  • County governments: relieved of the statutory obligation to pay these forensic exam costs (reduces local fiscal liability).
  • State (DHHS): increased administrative and fiscal responsibility to process reimbursements and set reimbursement rates.

Procedural / timeline details and current status

  • Introduced: Jan 21, 2025 (printed version dated Feb 20, 2025).
  • Floor and committee history shows passage in the Assembly (passed and sent to the Senate), multiple committee actions in the Senate, and later procedural steps. According to the legislative actions list, the measure was ordered to inactive file at the request of a Senator on 2025‑09‑02; the top status provided is “No further action taken.”
  • Implementation actions required if enacted: DHHS must adopt regulations (including annual reimbursement review) and manage the 60‑day reimbursement timeline.

Fiscal note / policy considerations

  • Fiscal impact: shifts costs from counties to the state and creates administrative costs for DHHS; the fiscal note in committee materials indicates “Effect on the State: Yes. Effect on Local Government: No.”
  • Policy implications: strengthens victim protections (no direct billing, no reporting required), centralizes reimbursement administration, and may standardize reimbursement rates and privacy protections statewide.

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

Sign in to ask a question.