Representative Charles Street, sponsor of the bill, asked the Senate Health & Long Term Care Committee to exempt elective percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed in hospitals owned or operated by the state from certificate-of-need requirements.

The bill would let Harborview Medical Center perform non-emergency PCIs on a scheduled basis rather than limiting the facility to emergency-only procedures. Representative Charles Street said Harborview “serves 60 percent of people who are on some kind of government subsidy” and that allowing elective PCIs there would reduce costs for taxpayers and avoid patients waiting until a coronary emergency.

The committee heard clinical and operational testimony. Dr. Michael Chen, a cardiologist at Harborview, told the committee he has cared for the hospital’s elderly, non–English-speaking and low–health-literacy patients for 25 years and that "once they have gotten to that procedure, to have to stop essentially halfway and then get them another appointment at another hospital to complete the procedure is even more difficult.” He said about 20 percent of patients scheduled elsewhere do not appear for the follow-up and that Harborview had two patients who died while awaiting completion of the procedure.

Rashi Gupta, speaking for Harborview administration, said the hospital had pursued a certificate of need through the Department of Health (DOH) for several years and that rulemaking remained underway; Harborview moved the bill forward after the DOH process had not concluded. Catherine Mahoney of Virginia Mason Franciscan Health, representing Saint Anne Hospital in Burien, urged the committee to consider a broader fix—House Bill 19 79—because several community hospitals have invested in emergency PCI capability and remain unable to provide elective follow-up because of certificate-of-need barriers.

Providence’s Teddy McGuire similarly asked the committee to consider broader statutory changes so hospitals categorized in the state’s cardiac system can fully utilize invested capacity without undergoing repeated certificate-of-need review.

No formal action on the bill was recorded in the hearing transcript; the committee set the bill aside to continue other business and executive session work. The record shows questions from committee members about DOH rulemaking timelines and whether the bill would pre-empt or complement continuing DOH work.

If advanced, proponents said the exemption would allow more planned scheduling, reduce repeated emergency visits and transfers, and improve continuity of care for vulnerable patients. Opponents who testified elsewhere recommended a broader statutory solution rather than a facility-specific carve out.

The committee closed the public hearing on the measure; no vote on the bill was recorded in the transcript.