Washington Senate Bill SB5915

Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/12/26
• Refer: 1/12/26
• Report Pass: 1/20/26
• Engrossed: 2/4/26
• Refer: 2/6/26
• Report Pass: 2/24/26
• Refer: 2/25/26
• Enrolled: 3/9/26
• Chaptered: 3/16/26
• Passed: 3/16/26

Caption

AN ACT Relating to the health technology assessment program;

Summary

SB 5915 revises Washington’s health technology assessment program, which reviews medical technologies to determine whether they should be covered benefits in state-purchased health care programs. The bill directs the administrator, in consultation with participating agencies and the committee, to select technologies for review with priority given to technologies that already have Medicare coverage or nationally recognized clinical guidelines, and it sets limits on how many technologies may be selected each year. The bill also changes how reviews and re-reviews are conducted. It requires a technology to be reconsidered at least every 18 months if new evidence emerges, allows interested parties to petition for review of technologies not otherwise selected, and requires the state to contract for a systematic evidence-based assessment of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. The assessment must consider evidence from participating agencies and interested parties, give greatest weight to the most valid and reliable evidence, and account for impacts on specific populations such as by sex, age, ethnicity, race, or disability. For life-threatening or rare diseases, the committee must consider all applicable clinical trials and may consider expert input when randomized trials are impractical or unethical.

Impact

SB 5915 amends RCW provisions governing the health technology assessment process and the authority of the health technology clinical committee. It affects how Washington determines whether a technology is medically necessary and covered under participating state health programs, while also adding transparency, public comment, publication, and decision-timeline requirements. The bill may influence coverage decisions, reimbursement standards, and the review of emerging or controversial medical technologies across state-administered health care programs.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. It passed both chambers unanimously, including 11-0 in the Senate committee, 49-0 on Senate final passage, 17-0 in the House committee, and 91-0 on House final passage. That voting record suggests strong bipartisan agreement on updating the review process for health technologies and improving evidence standards and transparency.

Contention

No recorded opposition or committee debate is provided, and the unanimous votes indicate little visible contention. The main policy choices embedded in the bill are procedural rather than ideological: prioritizing technologies with Medicare or guideline support, requiring periodic re-review, and allowing petitions and public input. If any concern existed, it would likely have centered on how much discretion the committee retains, the evidentiary standards used to override existing coverage norms, and the administrative burden of repeated reviews and public-facing timelines.