Nevada’s Health Care Future Expresses Concern Over Taxpayer-Funded Broker Compensation Proposal

CARSON CITY, NV — Nevada’s Health Care Future (NVHCF) today expressed its concern over Sections 10 and 11 of S.B.4, provisions passed during the special legislative session that authorizes $4.5 million of taxpayer money over two years to compensate brokers for enrolling individuals in Nevada’s state government-controlled Public Option system.

“Rather than fixing the Public Option’s foundational flaws, these proposed new taxpayer-funded broker compensation payments only make them worse,” said Kelley Robertson, Executive Director of Nevada’s Health Care Future. “This sets a dangerous precedent, requiring Nevada taxpayers to pay more to establish the state’s Public Option, without stakeholder engagement, lacking transparency, and encouraging inappropriate incentives.”

Authorizing additional taxpayer-funded broker compensation would:

• Raise Questions About Process: The proposal has moved forward without robust stakeholder discussion, leaving important details unresolved, including the duration of commission payments, the source of funding, and whether future costs could shift to other groups.
  
• Contradict the 1332 Waiver: Nevada’s approved 1332 waiver states that the Public Option would not cost the state money and would instead generate $5 million in revenue. Allocating $4.5 million in taxpayer funds for broker commissions appears to directly conflict with those commitments.
  
• Set a Troubling Precedent: This proposal could open the door for other states to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize specific industry groups, creating inequities across the marketplace and inviting questions about fairness in state health policy decisions.
  
• Create Unnecessary Market Confusion: Open enrollment is already underway, and introducing new, state-funded broker compensation midstream could confuse consumers, complicate outreach, and distract from efforts to strengthen existing coverage options.

“Moving forward with these provisions in S.B.4 could also set a troubling national precedent by allowing states to fund enrollment incentives for programs that lack sustainable designs,” Robertson added. “If the Nevada Public Option provided better, more affordable coverage, it wouldn’t require government-funded broker incentives to attract enrollees. We should instead focus on enhancing what already works — strengthening existing coverage options, supporting providers, and maintaining stability for consumers. Despite stakeholders being left out of the process early on, Nevada’s Health Care Future stands ready to be a constructive partner moving forward.”

NVHCF remains committed to advancing policies that strengthen Nevada’s existing health care system by building on the progress made through private coverage, employer-based insurance, and proven public programs that expand access and lower costs for Nevada families.