[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6088511,"mediaKeyId","2880113-15ddc8f4b58fc68b6c34f23a7116d7a8","parentId",2880113,"title","Insurance parity bill would restrict utilization management and require treatment consistent with clinical standards, OIC estimates enforcement cost","audioSeconds",1412,"startMs",7998000,"endMs",9410000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2880113-15ddc8f4b58fc68b6c34f23a7116d7a8&start=7998&end=9410","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2880113-15ddc8f4b58fc68b6c34f23a7116d7a8/thumbnail_7998000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6088511/Washington/Insurance-parity-bill-would-restrict-utilization-management-and-require-treatment-consistent-with-clinical-standards-OIC-estimates-enforcement-cost","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088511-c66e285f4ee1640a46618e1a03cb6010/orig.mp4?Expires=1770452891&Signature=MpC0BuKGg6kX4bj2rsOXd3fDNkDO9ZkSVZsPbOxW-gISwmWOfgTjCydAPP-WKQhXGfshtkgDw0~DgZFEvvdhY5lhJhWPu7aCfx0Eoik9zh1aI4VgLks89L-Xk7M50zJJIZbZUaBnZ3TjmsWBgkkEhLb8yBMgo5JMuDt5r7YpOpxkcOuSBlGsffOX5FA28W2Jm2XsOHJ2P1MCqk7aoFzLiuXbbMopdbExZb4oeIDhSz72UcDzj1V52e44Dz1Xqd-hzvt~2tTChdskex7PpGhvHM1zKyWwCAoQ7bofCbiEckLi4EcYPmsh6-zhSCPdSQphMe8QRlCb3LuOKKwyZcD9pw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington Legislature","date","2025-04-04T00:00:00Z","article","Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 14 32 would strengthen enforcement of mental‑health and substance‑use disorder parity by requiring carriers to use generally accepted clinical standards and recognized patient-placement criteria for utilization-review decisions.

Among the bill’s provisions are: a requirement that carriers (and their pharmacy/behavioral health managers) offer “meaningful benefits” covering standard treatment for diagnosed conditions; a prohibition on prior authorization and other utilization-management reviews for the initial evaluation and up to six consecutive outpatient visits for mental health and SUD care; and a requirement that utilization- and placement decisions be based on age‑appropriate criteria published by nonprofit professional associations. The bill also codifies that medical‑surgical and behavioral health benefits must be comparable under parity rules.

The Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) provided an updated fiscal note showing $1.264 million in one-time regulatory costs in 2025–27 for rulemaking, data collection and enforcement work. The updated note indicates the House-passed changes narrow impacts to public‑employee plans (PERS/SEBB) and removes direct cost impacts to those programs in the current fiscal estimate.

Advocates — including the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), mental‑health clinicians and other groups — argued the bill would reduce inappropriate denials, speed treatment starts and shift care away from emergency departments and publicly funded services. NAMI’s Anna Nepomissano told lawmakers that 60 percent of commercially insured Washingtonians with a diagnosed mental‑health condition did not receive treatment in the prior year, and that denials drive downstream public costs.

Insurer and employer representatives testified about potential implementation complexity and urged caution. They supported the bill’s intent to align coverage with clinical standards but warned about operational challenges and possible rate impacts depending on how clinical acceptability is specified and enforced.

Ending: The committee received a high volume of public testimony and OIC cost estimates; staff said the bill’s language had been narrowed in committee and emphasized continued coordination between OIC, carriers and providers to implement clinical‑standards requirements without unintended market disruption.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Ways & Means - 4/4/2025 1:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 14 32 would tighten enforcement of mental‑health parity by requiring insurers to apply accepted clinical standards and by narrowing prior authorization for early outpatient mental‑health and SUD visits.","taxTitle","Ways & Means, Senate, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20513,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6088515,"Student‑rights bill draws sharply split testimony on privacy, parental rights and school enforcement",1024,5672000,6696000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2880113-15ddc8f4b58fc68b6c34f23a7116d7a8&start=5672&end=6696","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2880113-15ddc8f4b58fc68b6c34f23a7116d7a8/thumbnail_5672000.jpg","/articles/6088515/Washington/Studentrights-bill-draws-sharply-split-testimony-on-privacy-parental-rights-and-school-enforcement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088515-f8f4f3a47152b41fa788fc9f5e5a4c86/orig.mp4?Expires=1770452891&Signature=IBZeVu5KRK0iPkY4w-FZ-C~q9Rjfo2KdAmUuIdMOGf5Re0PxnpnszWICDR2qEpCm5mIPmCIaE~be6NMlPBTIJy4XkhqJm80EIrnyoZheyYe~mUnexY4YGtZ0N3F5crxlByN-j1~obCH6cLR-0edFymGVr-wB3IbC53StQGyi5gWawqbiBKMGZDNwcXBt5FlN7OqNwufL-qHpL3Ia~fScXnXcy8RUSXPYIs3CkbDdGuSO~EAGLqJ6ScqRhPn1EOGN83E0~6b01dYdoY-L6kRikIXZVU4dWuoU95YqvGrREDk2Y856FieQ~6hbLATRmWWFeqXjBuhLRHtL~b1hDzdZtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee took public testimony on Engrossed Substitute House Bill 12 96 on April 4, a bill that updates school responsibilities on student rights, parental notification, staff protections and a complaints process for alleged violations.

The bill would require school districts to develop student-focused materials listing rights, expand technical assistance and investigative authority at OSPI (the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction), and provide protections for school employees who support students’ legal rights or use approved instructional materials. The bill also includes expedited parental notification requirements for allegations of abuse or misconduct by school employees and creates an OSPI complaint procedure and potential consequences for districts found out of compliance.

Students, educators and child‑health professionals testified in favor of the bill, saying it reinforces privacy protections and clarifies district obligations to keep vulnerable students safe. Student speakers described real-world examples where forced disclosure of a student’s gender identity to their parents could put the child at risk. Eunice Ingermanson, a student, testified that “minors being outed to their parents can and do put them in danger of parental violence, exclusion, homelessness, and suicide.” OSPI staff told the committee they would need roughly 3.6 additional FTEs over time to implement the bill’s complaint and compliance functions and that most staffing costs were included in the Senate budget proposal.

Other witnesses, including some parents and conservative groups, warned the bill would weaken parental rights and said the state has recognized parental decisionmaking authority in previous initiatives. They argued the statute as written could create new administrative costs and legal exposure. Jennifer Heine Whitney, a parent, testified the bill “puts the state in the place of parents” and argued it would increase litigation and other downstream costs.

Committee staff summarized the fiscal note: OSPI estimated roughly $1.16 million in implementation costs across the 2025–27 biennium, rising to $2.16 million in the 4‑year outlook for additional staff to run investigations and support districts; the House budget included $100,000 for initial implementation. The fiscal note also flagged possible withholding of up to 20% of basic education funds if a district repeatedly failed to come into compliance, creating an indeterminate cost risk for districts.

Ending: Testimony revealed a stark fault line between student-safety advocates and parents wary of diminished notification rules; the committee asked for clarifications and OSPI cost detail before moving the bill further.","Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1296 (student rights / parental notification / school compliance) prompted divided testimony: LGBTQ+ students and school advocates urged protections for privacy and safety; some parents and groups urged stronger parental notification and opposed changes to existing law.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6088520,"Long public hearing on rent-stabilization bill exposes split between tenants, local officials and developers",3664,4259000,7923000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2880113-15ddc8f4b58fc68b6c34f23a7116d7a8&start=4259&end=7923","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2880113-15ddc8f4b58fc68b6c34f23a7116d7a8/thumbnail_4259000.jpg","/articles/6088520/Washington/Long-public-hearing-on-rent-stabilization-bill-exposes-split-between-tenants-local-officials-and-developers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088520-ae4d8617e4dcb0aa3996584be1faa32d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770452891&Signature=o~2Jx9uM0i~SkI704ASrOUsc6sSJrsy5ATR3mtUvaO0dnh7RAI4GYwgSHZj6w-Ge7HBhXQEpLhvRjBntys1mj8~RIbdPv44kFR3Y~k51~B7FC~HmFfN0jo~YGagp5Grck1YJGeAUWbtMN-h2yY3a~5zNFbxfwD9ll1iBReWo7NI9DyniBSGfckhfc0C8gFYyf4zEbE6Zz79HcIdyiqjGnohi9ftr-NKa4rPUW~YFLMnc6CmBehhPgam9q7T9t8jjlsZM7s7H0t3dDtCyXfqve~Pz5W1yra-4c6~AiVBTeJeJ0nwX2BrCjPSwhgkBcHXY7P~~TYWuh4L5sqezMzWs~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ways & Means Committee heard extensive public testimony on Engrossed House Bill 12 17 on April 4, a wide-ranging housing-stability proposal that would cap rent and fee increases, change notice periods, and expand enforcement options for tenants.

Under the bill, initial rent increases would be barred for the first 12 months of a tenancy for properties governed by the Residential Landlord Tenant Act (RLTA) and the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act (MHLTA), followed by caps on increases (7% annual cap for residential properties, 5% for manufactured/mobile home sites). The measure includes carve-outs and exemptions for new construction, certain affordable housing programs, and publicly owned properties. It would also expand civil remedies, allow the attorney general to bring enforcement actions, and require a JLARC study on the bill’s market effects.

Tenant advocates, senior residents and community groups pressed sharply for the bill. Speakers described sharp rent increases and displacement risk, particularly for seniors and low-income households. Tenants Union representative Bryce Seiden and Tenants Union interim executive director Terry Anderson told the committee the proposal is essential to slow displacement and preserve stability for communities of color and low-income renters. Several senior residents and manufactured-home park tenants described multi‑hundred‑dollar annual rent or lot‑rent increases that, they said, strained fixed incomes.

Opponents included developers, builders’ associations, property managers and many small landlords, who argued the proposal would depress new housing development and pressure small “mom‑and‑pop” investors to sell properties out of the rental market. Builders and developers warned the state risks losing investment and critical construction activity; the Building Industry Association and several speakers urged tying any cap to CPI, lengthening the new-construction exemption and making penalties reasonable and correctable. Commercial and housing-finance witnesses warned that a strict cap without CPI linkage could reduce housing starts at a time when supply is already low.

Committee staff summarized the partial fiscal picture: Attorney General enforcement costs were estimated in a policy note at roughly $188,000 general fund for the 2025–27 biennium (rising in later outlook), although the House budget included higher funding for enforcement and Commerce reporting. Witnesses warned broader economic impacts would include reduced local sales and property tax revenues when projects are deferred.

Testimony reflected a classic policy tradeoff: tenant advocates framed the bill as urgent, equity-focused intervention to prevent displacement; industry witnesses argued it would chill new housing supply and worsen long-term affordability.

Ending: Lawmakers indicated the bill raises complicated tradeoffs between near-term tenant protections and longer-term housing supply and revenue impacts; committee staff requested additional economic analysis and clarified implementation questions before advancing the proposal.","Engrossed House Bill 1217 (striker) — a statewide rent and fee cap and other tenant protections — generated lengthy public testimony, with tenants and tenant groups urging adoption and developers, housing-industry groups and many landlords warning that caps would reduce housing supply and investment.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6088524,"Long hearing on permit-to-purchase bill draws broad public testimony on costs, rights and enforcement",2116,1677000,3793000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2880113-15ddc8f4b58fc68b6c34f23a7116d7a8&start=1677&end=3793","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2880113-15ddc8f4b58fc68b6c34f23a7116d7a8/thumbnail_1677000.jpg","/articles/6088524/Washington/Long-hearing-on-permit-to-purchase-bill-draws-broad-public-testimony-on-costs-rights-and-enforcement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088524-252f710ec8fec782665b7dfa0e42d431/orig.mp4?Expires=1770452891&Signature=B0fgwnzMXitjpya0uhtVeAVZ9L0W6GG9djV-Q84dUO8T0l2fZWa4DDV1DcuLzuD64h8oU4ttiUpoZNvVs9XQqnu9lWTUQe0QfgFtO21cXIwOFjIfqDwzajlm5p7r66WbE7TLQXfEFUImnwo-7O3vyEqRoXP4cIiKyiOarosAqSbtgG3RSat5pzuVcLzzR1W0SZ~T7Ox1YudDVMW~-0atD4ZShui5blAv1VzxPMFzTaUrm~2PogMCFcp8~cYpGoVocJR4FwuiMdH3aiK5nuV3JR2ZcpAkZb7Uk1gpu1ukTUbDaaqzdjRulhPvO1YVZP-Gc0kMzVT93KQ-syDnvZ58DA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1163, the permit-to-purchase and concealed carry overhaul, drew several hours of public testimony and detailed fiscal questioning at the Ways & Means Committee on April 4.

The bill would require buyers to obtain a permit before purchasing a firearm, authorize the Washington State Patrol (WSP) to issue or deny permits within set timeframes, require annual verification of permit holders and add proof-of-training requirements for concealed pistol licenses (CPLs). The Washington State Patrol estimated initial cash receipts of about $11.8 million beginning in FY2027 and requested a one-time general-fund transfer of $8.7 million to set up the State Firearms Background Check System, according to staff briefings presented to the committee.

Supporters — including survivors, public-health advocates and organizations that study gun violence — urged the committee to approve the measure, saying evidence and out-of-state experience show permit-to-purchase regimes can reduce firearm homicides and suicides. Elizabeth Wagner, a research analyst at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, cited studies of Connecticut and Missouri and told the committee that Connecticut’s permanent-purchase law was associated with reductions in gun homicide and suicide.

Opponents, including firearms trade groups, shooting-range owners and individual gun owners, argued the proposal would impose heavy costs on law-abiding citizens, exacerbate race- and income-based inequities, and would be vulnerable to litigation. Multiple witnesses raised concern about the Washington State Patrol’s capacity to administer a new permitting system given existing delays in background checks. Daniel Mitchell, who testified in opposition, said the bill would “waste tens of millions of dollars” and create barriers for lawful gun owners. Several speakers called the bill a “poll tax” because of permit and training costs.

Fiscal and operational concerns dominated questioning. Committee staff relayed the WSP estimates shown in the bill’s fiscal note: a projected $11.8 million in fee revenue beginning in FY27, an $8.7 million initial general-fund transfer to cover startup costs that the patrol expects to be reimbursed by fees by mid-2028, and $13.7 million in WSP expenditures over the 2025–27 biennium for program implementation and operations. The Department of Licensing estimated a modest systems update cost of $48,000. Several testifiers — including law-enforcement commentators and county officials — told the committee they believed the patrol’s application-volume estimate (100,000 applications per year) could be low compared with the number of firearms and background checks currently processed in the state.

Public-safety and equity arguments appeared on both sides. Supporters argued that permit-to-purchase laws have been associated with reductions in firearm deaths and that annual verification and training requirements would prevent ineligible people from retaining access to firearms. Opponents, including the Washington State Rifle and Pistol Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, warned the bill would drive law-abiding owners off insurance panels and out of the regulated market — without deterring criminal access to illegal firearms.

Committee staff said they had not received representation from the Washington State Patrol at the policy hearing and noted the agency’s implementation questions remained central to the fiscal review.

The committee did not take a vote during the April 4 session. With broad public participation and contrasting technical estimates on staffing, systems and legal risk, lawmakers signaled additional work would be required before the Legislature could move the bill forward.

Ending: The bill remains under review; staff recommended additional technical follow-up with implementing agencies to refine cost, capacity and legal risk estimates before any final committee action.","Lawmakers held extended public testimony on Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1163, a permit-to-purchase and concealed-carry overhaul that would require permits, new training and a State Firearms Background Check System. Supporters said permits reduce violence; opponents called it costly, unconstitutional and impractical for rural residents.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Insurance parity bill would restrict utilization management and require treatment consistent with clinical standards, OIC estimates enforcement cost

Student‑rights bill draws sharply split testimony on privacy, parental rights and school enforcement

Long public hearing on rent-stabilization bill exposes split between tenants, local officials and developers

Long hearing on permit-to-purchase bill draws broad public testimony on costs, rights and enforcement