SB 6305
In CommitteeSenate
Mental health coverage
Concerning the truth in mental health coverage act.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a public reporting system to track and compare how health insurance plans cover mental health and substance use services, aiming to improve access and transparency. It requires insurers to share detailed, standardized data about provider networks, reimbursement rates, and utilization reviews—and makes that data publicly available online.
- Requires health insurance carriers to annually submit detailed data on mental health and substance use disorder coverage and access—including utilization reviews, out-of-network use, in-network reimbursement rates, provider network size, and appeal outcomes—to the state insurance commissioner by July 1 each year.
- Mandates that the insurance commissioner create standardized reporting templates, definitions, and data quality protocols to ensure consistency and comparability across insurers.
- Requires carriers to report data broken down by facility type, provider type, youth vs. adult services, and in-person vs. telehealth services—including whether providers are owned or controlled by the insurer.
- Requires the commissioner to post all raw data on a public website within three months of receipt, and to maintain an interactive public dashboard (updated by March 1 each year) that allows comparisons across insurers and service types.
- Requires a senior officer (e.g., CFO) of each carrier to certify the accuracy and completeness of submitted data, and allows the commissioner to request clarifications or additional information.
- Applies to health plans issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, and retains data for three years for audit purposes.
Who is affected
- Health insurance carriers — Health insurance companies (carriers) must collect, report, and certify detailed data on mental health and substance use disorder coverage and access, and maintain records for three years.
- Washington residents with mental health or substance use conditions — Residents of Washington, especially youth and people with mental health or substance use conditions, may benefit from improved access to care due to increased transparency and accountability in insurance networks.
- Employers and union sponsors of health plans — Employers and unions that purchase group health plans will gain access to standardized, comparable data to help evaluate and choose plans with better behavioral health coverage.
- Researchers and mental health advocates — Researchers, advocacy groups, and the public will be able to access and analyze publicly posted data to study disparities and inform policy decisions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Public dashboard and raw data release will empower consumers, families, and advocates to compare insurers and hold them accountable for behavioral health access—especially for youth and low-income residents who lack resources to shop plans independently.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)-(d) and Sec. 2(6)(a)-(c)In-network reimbursement data indexed to Medicare will expose the 41% pay gap between medical and behavioral health clinicians, enabling regulators and providers to pressure insurers to raise rates and expand provider networks—directly benefiting clinicians and patients seeking timely care.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(iii)Disaggregated utilization review metrics (approvals, denials, decision times) will help identify patterns of arbitrary or delayed approvals that disproportionately affect low-income and rural residents, supporting regulatory enforcement and policy reforms.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(i)Reporting network admission evaluation timelines will expose slow credentialing practices that contribute to provider shortages—particularly harmful in rural areas—enabling regulators to set reasonable timeframes and improve access.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(vi)Mandating disclosure of insurer-owned providers will help consumers avoid networks that appear broad but are dominated by for-profit entities with financial incentives to limit care—protecting vulnerable populations who rely on in-network care due to cost barriers.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(c)
Potential Concerns (5)
Improved transparency may help law enforcement and emergency responders better understand behavioral health access gaps in their communities, potentially informing crisis response planning and resource allocation.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)-(d)Data on psychiatric collaborative care models may help health systems and providers identify effective care coordination strategies, supporting integrated behavioral health in primary care settings.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(vii)Reporting on appeals and external reviews may help identify patterns of unjustified denials, supporting advocacy and regulatory enforcement to improve timely access to care.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(viii)Standardized reporting across facility, provider, and service types (e.g., youth vs. adult, in-person vs. telehealth) will enable more precise identification of access barriers for vulnerable subpopulations, supporting targeted interventions.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)Senior officer certification requirement increases accountability and reduces risk of data manipulation, supporting regulatory integrity and public trust in insurance oversight.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(7)
Who Is Most Affected
Health insurers will face new administrative and compliance costs and may face reputational risk if their networks or practices appear inferior on the public dashboard; large national insurers with weaker behavioral health networks may be most affected.
Residents with mental health or substance use conditions—especially youth, low-income, and rural residents—will benefit from improved transparency and accountability, potentially reducing wait times and out-of-network costs.
Employers and union sponsors will gain standardized data to evaluate plan quality, but most small employers lack resources to analyze dashboards—benefits will likely accrue to large employers and HR consultants.
Researchers and advocates will gain powerful new tools to document disparities and push for policy reforms, but low-income and rural residents may lack digital access or literacy to use the dashboard directly.