|HB 2575-S2.E - DIGEST|
|(DIGEST AS ENACTED)|
Establishes a health technology clinical committee.
Requires the administrator, in consultation with participating agencies and the committee, to select the health technologies to be reviewed by the committee under this act. Up to six may be selected for review in the first year after the effective date of this act, and up to eight may be selected in the second year after the effective date of this act. In making the selection, priority shall be given to any technology for which: (1) There are concerns about its safety, efficacy, or cost-effectiveness, especially relative to existing alternatives, or significant variations in its use;
(2) Actual or expected state expenditures are high, due to demand for the technology, its cost, or both; and
(3) There is adequate evidence available to conduct the complete review.
|VETO MESSAGE ON E2SHB 2575|
|March 29, 2006|
|To the Honorable Speaker and Members,|
|The House of Representatives of the State of Washington|
|Ladies and Gentlemen:|
|I am returning, without my approval as to Section 6, Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill No. 2575 entitled:|
"AN ACT Relating to establishing a state health technology assessment program."
|I strongly support ESSHB No. 2575 and particularly its inclusion of language that protects an individual's right to appeal. Section 5(4) of the bill states that "nothing in this act diminishes an individual's right under existing law to appeal an action or decision of a participating agency regarding a state purchased health care program. Appeals shall be governed by state and federal law applicable to participating agency decisions." This is an important provision and one that I support whole-heartedly.|
|I am, however, vetoing Section 6 of this bill, which establishes an additional appeals process for patients, providers, and other stakeholders who disagree with the coverage determinations of the Health Technology Clinical Committee. The health care provider expertise on the clinical committee and the use of an evidence-based practice center should lend sufficient confidence in the quality of decisions made. Where issues may arise, I believe the individual appeal process highlighted above is sufficient to address them, without creating a duplicative and more costly process.|
|In the implementation of this bill, I expect the Health Care Authority, with the cooperation of participating agencies, to facilitate a timely and transparent process, to prioritize and manage the review of technologies within appropriated funds, and to meaningfully consider stakeholder feedback regarding the program and appeals processes. I further expect that the implementation of the Health Technology Assessment Program will be consistent with sound methods of assessment and the principles of evidence-based medicine.|
|I appreciate the Legislature's passage of this bill and have full confidence that it will help ensure that Washingtonians receive health care services that are safe and effective.|
|For these reasons, I have vetoed Section 6 of ESSHB No. 2575.|
|With the exception of Section 6, ESSHB No. 2575 is approved.|
|Christine O. Gregoire|