Skip to main content

HB 1062

In Committee

House

Biomarker testing coverage

Providing coverage for biomarker testing.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 12, 2025
Last Action: January 12, 2026
Status: H HC/Wellness

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill requires private health insurers, public employee health plans, and Apple Health (Medicaid) in Washington to cover biomarker testing—such as genetic or protein tests used in cancer or other serious conditions—starting January 1, 2026, when supported by accepted medical evidence. It also requires plans to minimize patient inconvenience, like avoiding repeat tissue sampling.

  • Starting January 1, 2026, private health insurers must cover biomarker testing when used for diagnosis, treatment, management, or monitoring of a disease—provided the test is supported by FDA approval, CMS guidelines, national clinical practice guidelines, or expert consensus statements.
  • Public employee health plans (for state and local workers) must also cover biomarker testing under the same evidence-based criteria, effective January 1, 2026.
  • Apple Health (Medicaid) must cover biomarker testing beginning January 1, 2026, with the state actively pursuing federal funding to help pay for it.
  • Insurers and program administrators must ensure coverage minimizes disruptions to care—such as avoiding unnecessary repeat biopsies or specimen collection.
  • The bill defines key terms: biomarker (e.g., gene mutations or protein levels), biomarker testing (e.g., blood or tissue tests including whole genome sequencing), consensus statements, and nationally recognized clinical practice guidelines.

Who is affected

  • Private health plan enrolleesResidents with Washington-state-based health insurance plans (including individual, group, and employer-sponsored plans) who may need biomarker testing for conditions like cancer or other serious illnesses will gain coverage for these tests starting in 2026, without needing multiple tissue samples or causing care delays.
  • Public employees and dependentsState and local government employees and their dependents enrolled in the state’s health plan will receive coverage for biomarker testing under the same standards as private plans beginning in 2026.
  • Apple Health (Medicaid) enrolleesLow-income Washington residents enrolled in Apple Health (Medicaid) will gain access to biomarker testing coverage, with the state actively seeking federal matching funds to support this expansion.
Effective: 2026-01-01Fiscal impact: The state may incur additional costs to cover biomarker testing for Apple Health enrollees, but the bill directs the Department of Social and Health Services to seek federal matching funds to offset these costs; no specific dollar amount is provided.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 6:28 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (4)
  • The bill mandates coverage of biomarker testing for private insurers, public employee plans, and Apple Health when supported by accepted medical evidence—ensuring Washingtonians with serious illnesses (especially cancer patients) gain access to advanced diagnostic tools without requiring repeat invasive procedures, directly improving diagnostic accuracy and care continuity.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(2), Sec. 3(2)
  • By requiring plans to minimize patient inconvenience—specifically avoiding unnecessary repeat biopsies or biospecimen collection—the bill reduces physical trauma, emotional stress, and out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing complex diagnostics, especially benefiting vulnerable populations like elderly or frail patients.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 2(3), Sec. 3(3)
  • The bill’s evidence-based coverage criteria—including FDA approval, CMS guidelines, nationally recognized clinical practice guidelines, and consensus statements—create a transparent, science-based standard that reduces arbitrary denials and helps ensure equitable access across payer types, reducing disparities in advanced diagnostics access.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(d), Sec. 2(2)(d), Sec. 3(2)(d)
  • The explicit inclusion of whole genome sequencing and multiplex panel tests in the definition of biomarker testing ensures coverage of cutting-edge, comprehensive diagnostic tools—potentially improving early detection and personalized treatment for serious conditions, especially for patients with rare or hard-to-diagnose diseases.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b), Sec. 2(4)(b), Sec. 3(4)(b)
Potential Concerns (1)
  • The bill requires Apple Health (Medicaid) to cover biomarker testing beginning in 2026, but the state must seek federal matching funds to offset costs—meaning coverage is contingent on federal approval and funding availability, creating uncertainty about timely, full implementation for low-income enrollees who rely on Medicaid for essential care.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(4)

Who Is Most Affected

Patients with serious illnesses (e.g., cancer, rare diseases)Positive Impact

Cancer patients and individuals with serious chronic illnesses gain direct access to advanced diagnostics without prior barriers—reducing diagnostic delays, repeat procedures, and out-of-pocket costs. This is especially impactful for Medicaid enrollees who previously faced higher rates of coverage denial for advanced testing.

Apple Health (Medicaid) enrolleesMixed Impact

Low-income Apple Health enrollees benefit significantly from expanded access to advanced diagnostics, but coverage success depends on federal matching funds—introducing uncertainty. If federal funding stalls, the state may face budget pressure or delayed implementation, potentially limiting real-world access despite the mandate.

Private health insurers and large employersMixed Impact

Private insurers must absorb new coverage costs but can pass some to employers or enrollees via premiums. However, the evidence-based standard reduces administrative burden and arbitrary denials, potentially lowering long-term costs through better-targeted care. Small employers may face modest premium increases, while large employers may see minimal impact due to risk-pooling.

Public employees and dependentsPositive Impact

Public employees gain parity with private-sector coverage for advanced diagnostics, improving equity across public and private plans. However, state budget planners must account for increased plan costs—potentially affecting future contributions or benefits if federal Apple Health matching funds fall short.

Diagnostics and genomic testing industryPositive Impact

Diagnostics labs and genomic testing companies may see increased demand and reimbursement certainty, but the bill does not set payment rates—so reimbursement levels and speed of adoption depend on payer implementation. Large national labs may benefit more than small local labs due to scale and negotiating power.

Sponsors

Representative Stonier(Democrat)District 49Primary
Representative Corry(Republican)District 15Secondary
Representative Parshley(Democrat)District 22Secondary
Representative Thai(Democrat)District 41Secondary
Representative Macri(Democrat)District 43Secondary
Representative Ryu(Democrat)District 32Secondary
Representative Leavitt(Democrat)District 28Secondary
Representative Berry(Democrat)District 36Secondary
Representative Reed(Democrat)District 36Secondary
Senator Alvarado(Democrat)District 34Secondary
Representative Callan(Democrat)District 5Secondary
Representative Tharinger(Democrat)District 24Secondary
Representative Fosse(Democrat)District 38Secondary
Representative Simmons(Democrat)District 23Secondary
Representative Davis(Democrat)District 32Secondary
Representative Ormsby(Democrat)District 3Secondary
Representative Reeves(Democrat)District 30Secondary
Representative Bernbaum(Democrat)District 24Secondary
Representative Donaghy(Democrat)District 44Secondary
Representative Hill(Democrat)District 3Secondary