Revises provisions relating to insurance. (BDR 57-697)
AB 511 revises Nevada insurance reimbursement rules so that, when a health policy, contract, evidence of coverage, or employer health benefit plan covers a service, the insured person or the provider who actually rendered the service may be entitled to reimbursement. The bill updates a broad set of statutes covering individual and group health insurance, nonprofit hospital/medical/dental service contracts, health maintenance organization coverage, and certain employer-provided health benefits. It applies this reimbursement language to services provided by chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, clinical professional counselors, social workers, clinical alcohol and drug counselors, and certain registered nurses acting within their authorized scope of practice.
The bill also adds new assignment-of-benefits provisions for nonprofit hospital, medical, or dental service corporations and HMOs, allowing insured persons to assign benefits directly to the health care provider who furnished the covered services. If an insurer or HMO pays the insured after receiving notice of an assignment, it must also pay the provider once it learns of the incorrect payment. The measure is effective January 1, 2026, and is framed as a technical but substantive update to align reimbursement and assignment rules across multiple insurance arrangements.
AB 511 changes Nevada insurance law by shifting reimbursement language from the insured being entitled to reimbursement for covered treatment to the insured or the treating provider being entitled to reimbursement, depending on the context. It amends numerous sections of NRS chapters 608, 689A, 689B, 695B, and 695C, and it creates new assignment-of-benefits sections for nonprofit service corporations and HMOs. The bill is likely to affect insurers, HMOs, nonprofit health service corporations, employers offering health benefits, and the listed categories of licensed providers by clarifying who may receive payment directly and by reinforcing parity in coverage and reimbursement for services within a provider’s scope of practice.
The available voting history shows strong bipartisan or at least unanimous support: the Assembly passed the bill 42-0 and the Senate passed it 21-0. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate opposition. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed favorably as a reimbursement and administrative clarification measure rather than a controversial policy change.
No specific contention is reflected in the provided materials, and the unanimous votes suggest little to no formal opposition. The main policy issue embedded in the bill is whether insurers and related entities must reimburse the actual treating provider, rather than only the insured, and whether assignment of benefits should be expressly allowed for nonprofit service corporations and HMOs. Any practical concerns would likely center on insurer payment administration, duplicate billing, and the scope of direct reimbursement rights for the listed provider groups, but those concerns are not documented in the supplied discussion record.