Makes revisions relating to health care. (BDR 40-988)
AB 343 revises Nevada health care and consumer-protection law by requiring hospitals to make pricing information more transparent and by adding new rules for medical debt collection. The bill requires hospitals to publish annual, machine-readable lists of standard charges for all items and services, as well as lists of shoppable services or, alternatively, to maintain a compliant price-estimator tool. Hospitals must also publish information about facility fees charged for outpatient services in off-campus facilities, and the Department of Health and Human Services must post those reports publicly.
The bill also creates enforcement mechanisms tied to billing transparency. A hospital that is out of compliance with the pricing-disclosure requirements may be barred from collecting related medical debt until it comes back into compliance, and certain collection efforts during noncompliance are treated as deceptive trade practices. Separately, before collecting medical debt, health care entities must provide patients with an itemized statement, language-assistance information, and contact information for someone who can discuss or adjust the bill, and they must provide receipts for payments. Violations can lead to complaints to the Bureau of Consumer Protection, cancellation of the debt, refunds, and administrative penalties.
AB 343 amends Nevada law in Chapter 439B and related provisions to impose new disclosure, reporting, and enforcement duties on hospitals and other health care entities. It adds state-level requirements that largely mirror or supplement federal hospital price-transparency rules, expands the Department’s oversight authority, creates a public website for violation notices, and authorizes administrative penalties. It also amends the Consumer Health Advocate’s duties to assist patients in filing claims related to medical debt collection violations. The bill applies prospectively to most provisions on January 1, 2026, while allowing preparatory rulemaking earlier.
The available voting record suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support. It passed the Assembly 28-14 and the Senate 13-8, indicating a majority in both chambers but with notable opposition. No committee transcript was provided, so the discussion record is limited; based on the bill’s content and the vote margins, the measure appears to have been generally supported as a consumer-protection and transparency bill, while still drawing concern from some lawmakers about its regulatory and enforcement burdens on hospitals and health care entities.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s enforcement provisions and their effect on hospitals’ ability to collect payment. AB 343 goes beyond disclosure by prohibiting collection activity when a hospital is out of compliance, treating knowing violations as deceptive trade practices, and requiring cancellation and refund of debts after an adverse finding. Hospitals and other providers may also object to the breadth of required reporting, the administrative penalties, and the public posting of violations. On the other hand, consumer advocates and patients are likely to support the bill’s emphasis on clearer billing, itemized statements, payment receipts, and assistance from the Consumer Health Advocate.