Skip to main content

HB 1766

In Committee

House

Health carrier practices

Prohibiting certain contracting practices by a health carrier acting as a third-party administrator for self-insured coverage offered to public employees.

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 30, 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 stops health insurance companies from forcing state-run hospital systems to join their commercial health plans in order to participate in self-funded employee health plans. It applies specifically when the insurer acts as the administrator for public employee health plans.

  • Prohibits health carriers (insurance companies) from requiring state-owned hospital systems to join their commercial health plans as a condition to participate in self-funded employee health plans.
  • Applies only when the health carrier is acting as a third-party administrator (TPA) for self-funded plans offered to state or school employees under chapter 41.05 RCW.
  • Clarifies that 'health carrier' has the same legal definition used elsewhere in state law (RCW 48.43.005).

Who is affected

  • State-owned or operated hospital systemsState-run hospital systems (e.g., Providence Washington, Kaiser Permanente Washington, or other state-owned or operated facilities) may no longer be forced to join commercial health plans as a condition to participate in self-funded employee health plans.
  • Public employers (state, school districts, etc.)State and public employers (e.g., state agencies, public schools, universities) who sponsor self-funded health plans for their employees could face new restrictions on how health carriers contract with them.
  • Health carriers / insurance companiesHealth insurance companies (health carriers) that serve as third-party administrators for self-funded public employee plans must change their contracting practices to avoid tying commercial plan participation to self-funded plan access.
Effective: June 7, 2025Fiscal impact: No significant fiscal impact identified; the bill prohibits a specific contracting practice but does not create new spending or revenue.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 7:17 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (4)
  • Protects patient autonomy and provider choice by preventing insurers from coercing state hospitals into commercial networks solely to access public employee plans—this supports fair market access and reduces anti-competitive bundling practices.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
  • Promotes equitable access for public employees and their families to state-run hospitals, which often serve as safety-net providers for underserved communities—including Medicaid recipients, low-income workers, and rural residents—by preventing insurers from excluding them as leverage in commercial negotiations.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
  • Empowers public employers to negotiate self-funded plans without being forced into commercial contracts that may not align with their employees’ needs—this increases procurement autonomy and could improve plan design flexibility for state and school employees.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
  • Strengthens public health infrastructure by preserving the financial and operational independence of state-owned hospitals—preventing forced network inclusion helps sustain their ability to serve high-need populations, including during public health emergencies.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
Potential Concerns (3)
  • May reduce health carriers’ ability to negotiate integrated network access, potentially weakening their leverage to include high-quality state hospitals in commercial plans—this could limit consumer choice in commercial markets if hospitals opt out of commercial networks due to reduced incentive to participate without tied self-funded access.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
  • Could increase administrative complexity for health carriers managing separate commercial and self-funded contracts, potentially raising operational costs that may be passed on to employers or plan sponsors in the form of higher TPA fees or reduced service flexibility.

    Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
  • School districts and other public employers may lose leverage in negotiating comprehensive care networks, especially in rural areas where state hospitals are key providers—this could affect continuity of care for plan members if commercial plans exclude state hospitals without offsetting access improvements.

    Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)

Who Is Most Affected

State-owned or operated hospital systemsPositive Impact

State-owned hospital systems (e.g., Providence Washington, Kaiser Permanente Washington) gain freedom to participate in public employee plans without being forced into commercial contracts—this supports their mission as safety-net providers and preserves their ability to serve Medicaid and low-income patients without commercial network constraints.

Public employees and their familiesPositive Impact

Public employees (state workers, teachers, school staff) benefit from greater provider choice and continued access to high-quality state hospitals in both commercial and self-funded plans—especially important in rural areas where state hospitals are primary care sources.

Health carriers / insurance companiesMixed Impact

Health carriers lose a lever for network integration but gain compliance clarity—while short-term revenue flexibility decreases, long-term stability may improve by avoiding anti-competitive scrutiny and aligning with state procurement ethics standards.

Public employersPositive Impact

Self-funded public employers (state agencies, school districts, universities) gain negotiating autonomy and reduced risk of being locked into commercial contracts that may not serve their workforce’s needs—this supports fiscal responsibility and plan customization.

Underserved communitiesPositive Impact

Rural and low-income communities that rely on state hospitals for care may see improved access as hospitals are no longer pressured to join commercial networks against their mission—this strengthens community health infrastructure and reduces disparities.

Sponsors

Representative Macri(Democrat)District 43Primary
Representative Thai(Democrat)District 41Secondary
Representative Scott(Democrat)District 43Secondary
Representative Parshley(Democrat)District 22Secondary
Representative Salahuddin(Democrat)District 48Secondary
Representative Ormsby(Democrat)District 3Secondary
Representative Pollet(Democrat)District 46Secondary
Representative Reed(Democrat)District 36Secondary