AB 382 expands Nevada’s biomarker-testing insurance mandate. Under current law, certain public and private health plans must cover medically necessary biomarker testing for cancer when supported by medical evidence. This bill removes the “medically necessary” limitation and broadens the covered use beyond cancer to biomarker testing for the diagnosis, treatment, appropriate management, and ongoing monitoring of any medical condition or disease, so long as the testing is supported by medical and scientific evidence.
The bill applies this expanded coverage across a wide range of health coverage arrangements, including individual and group health insurance, health benefit plans, benefit contracts, hospital and medical service corporation policies, health maintenance organization plans, managed care organization plans, and Medicaid. It also requires insurers and plans to maintain an accessible exception and appeal process, post that process online, and respond to prior authorization requests within 24 hours for urgent requests or 72 hours otherwise. The bill specifies that coverage is not required for screening purposes, for testing outside a provider’s scope of practice, or for out-of-network providers or facilities in network-based plans.
AB 382 would amend multiple Nevada Revised Statutes sections governing insurance and Medicaid, and it would make conflicting policy provisions void for policies renewed or issued on or after January 1, 2026. It also updates definitions of biomarker, biomarker testing, consensus statement, and nationally recognized clinical practice guidelines to reflect broader testing methods, including multiplex panels and whole genome, whole exome, and whole transcriptome sequencing. The bill further states that local governments are not entitled to reimbursement under the state’s unfunded mandate law for related costs.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of expanding access to precision medicine and reducing barriers to clinically supported testing. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. Based on the structure of the bill, the likely policy emphasis is on patient access, standardized coverage rules, and faster insurer decision-making rather than on restricting coverage.
The main points of contention that could arise from the bill are cost and utilization concerns, since the measure broadens coverage obligations and removes the prior “medically necessary” gatekeeping standard. Insurers, managed care organizations, and public purchasers may object to increased claims costs, administrative burden, and the potential for broader use of expensive genomic testing. On the other hand, patient advocates, oncology and precision-medicine stakeholders, and providers are likely to support the bill because it reduces denials and expands access to evidence-based testing.
AB 382 would substantially expand Nevada insurance law by requiring coverage for biomarker testing across many types of health plans and public programs, not just for cancer and not only when the test is deemed medically necessary. It amends multiple chapters of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing private insurers, group plans, HMOs, managed care organizations, and Medicaid, and it makes the new coverage requirements self-executing for policies and plans issued, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026. The bill also creates procedural requirements for exceptions, appeals, and prior authorization timelines, and it voids conflicting policy language.
The bill appears generally favorable toward expanding health coverage and access to biomarker testing. The text frames the change as an evidence-based coverage expansion and includes consumer-facing protections such as appeal rights and fast prior authorization deadlines. No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials, but the policy direction suggests strong support from patient-access and medical-innovation advocates and likely caution from insurers and managed care entities.
The likely areas of contention are the breadth of the mandate and its cost implications. Removing the “medically necessary” limitation and extending coverage from cancer to any medical condition or disease could increase utilization and insurer expenditures, which may concern insurers, employer plans, and Medicaid administrators. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s prior authorization deadlines and the requirement to maintain an online exception and appeal process, which add administrative obligations. Supporters are likely to argue that these provisions are necessary to prevent delays and denials for clinically supported precision medicine.