State Net

‘Junk Fee’ Ban Advancing in IL

2026-04-15T21:05:00Z

IL House Passes ‘Junk Fee’ Bill

The Illinois House passed a bill (HB 228) that would amend the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act to prohibit businesses from advertising, displaying or offering a price for goods or services that doesn’t include all mandatory fees and surcharges. The “junk fee” ban is similar to one the chamber passed two years ago, but vague language has been tightened up to make it easier for businesses to comply with it and easier for the attorney general’s office to enforce it. Gov. J.B. Pritzker called for lawmakers to pass the legislation in his State of the State address this year. (CAPITOL NEWS ILLINOIS)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.

Anthropic’s New AI Model Too Powerful for Public Use & More

2026-04-15T21:01:00Z

Anthropic Not Releasing New AI Model to Public

The artificial intelligence company Anthropic—recently in the headlines for demanding that the Pentagon agree to certain limitations on the use of its technology—announced last week that it would not be releasing its new AI model to the public because it is too powerful. Company executives said the new model, called Claude Mythos Preview, is capable of autonomously scanning for and exploiting vulnerabilities in software programs, including all of the major operating systems and browsers. The company said it would allow a group of about 40 technology companies, including Apple and Amazon, to use the new model to find and patch security vulnerabilities in critical software. (NEW YORK TIMES)

Ballot Measures Aimed at Limiting Data Center Development

Voters in the city of Port Washington, Wisconsin, became the first in the country to approve a ballot measure to limit the construction of data centers. Similar proposals are already on the ballot in at least three other cities, and a proposed initiative is also circulating in Ohio. (PLURIBUS NEWS)

MN Lawmakers Aim to Prohibit Data Center NDAs

Fast-moving legislation in Minnesota (HF 4077/SF 4379) would prohibit local government officials from signing nondisclosure agreements for projects involving public funding. Local governments have signed contracts with major tech companies like Meta, agreeing not to share information about proposed data centers with the public. (MINNESOTA REFORMER)

ME Data Privacy Bill Remains Alive

The Maine Senate approved legislation (HB 1220 a) that would allow companies to collect and store only the data that’s necessary to provide a good or service; prohibit them from collecting biometric information unless necessary; and ban them from advertising directly to children or selling children’s data. The measure failed in the House the week before, but the Senate’s vote sends it back to the House for reconsideration. (PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

CT Bill Focusing on AI in Employment

2026-04-15T20:59:00Z

CT Lawmakers Target AI in Employment

A bill (SB 435) before Connecticut’s legislature would require employers to disclose to job applicants when they are communicating with artificial intelligence, when their resumes will be scanned by AI, or when AI will be involved in the hiring process at all. The measure would also require employers to inform unions before deploying AI and prohibit the use of AI that undermines an existing labor agreement. (CT INSIDER, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Washington Joins States Limiting Employer-Mandated Worker Microchipping

2026-04-15T17:38:00Z

On March 11, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed HB 2303. The law, which takes effect June 11, bars employers from requesting, requiring or coercing workers or job applicants to accept a subcutaneous microchip implant, while exempting devices used for diagnosis, monitoring, treatment or prevention of a health condition. The law also provides a private right of action, allowing employees harmed by employers that violate the law to seek injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The legislation is part of a broader state trend toward preemptive limits on employer-driven microchip implants. At least 11 other states already had laws prohibiting the mandatory microchipping of employees in place before Washington enacted HB 2303, according to LexisNexis® State Net® data. The laws in Alabama (Code of Ala. § 25-1-4) and Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.870) make forced microchipping a felony.

“Microchips may seem like science fiction, but the technology is here,” said Washington Rep. Brianna Thomas (D), the author of HB 2303, in a press release. “The concept is pretty simple. Don’t chip me, bro!”

In all seriousness, she added, forced microchipping “creates an opportunity for employers to track employees during work hours and at home. That is scary. We recognize that the power dynamic between an employer and an employee makes true freedom of choice nearly impossible. This is a big step to help protect our employees from being microchipped by their employer.”

Legislators Remain Concerned about Employer Surveillance

In the House Bill Report for HB 2303, legislative staff wrote that the practice of implanting microchips into workers “has not yet occurred in Washington.”

But lawyer Scott Prange of the national law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP wrote that while this forced employee microchipping isn’t happening “in any widespread way—at least not yet,” the technology not only exists but is “increasingly normalized in certain contexts.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the VeriChip system for medical use in 2004, allowing an implanted ID number to be used to retrieve patient identity and authorized health information from a secure database.

“Outside healthcare, these implants—typically about the size of a grain of rice—can function as ID badges or enable contactless payments,” Prange wrote. “In practical terms, an RFID chip could replace access badges, unlock doors, access computer networks, enable cashless purchases, and streamline everyday workplace tasks. From an employer perspective, proponents point to potential benefits like reduced administrative costs, improved efficiency, and even the ability to track certain aspects of employee activity.”

Prange said legislators are concerned about microchipping because of “the broader implications to worker surveillance and individual autonomy.”

“Because these devices are embedded and not easily turned off (or removed), it becomes far less clear where an employee’s privacy rights begin and end—particularly for workers expected to remain connected or responsive outside traditional working hours,” he wrote.

“HB 2303 reflects the legislature’s efforts to ‘hardwire’ boundaries before that monitoring crosses from devices employees carry to the bodies they inhabit.”

Worker Microchipping Laws Enacted in Dozen States

At least 11 states have laws in effect prohibiting employers from requiring employees to be implanted with a microchip or other permanent identification marker as a condition of employment, according to State Net® data. Washington enacted a worker microchipping ban (HB 2303) this year that takes effect on June 11. Three other states considered bills this year dealing with worker microchipping.

Human Microchipping Remains Rare

The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs reported in 2024 that more than 50,000 people had received microchip implants that can act as credit cards, swipe keys or allow them to instantly share social media information.

In 2017, a Wisconsin company called Three Square Market held a “chip party” where 41 of its 85 employees volunteered to be microchipped in what company leaders said was the first U.S. use of technology already used in Europe.

Microchipping has also drawn a fair amount of interest in Sweden; NPR reported in 2018 that more than 4,000 Swedes elected to implant the devices, with the company Biohax International dominating the market.

In the United States, microchipping is much more common for pets and other animals. And legislative efforts are currently focused there. As of April 10, over 40 bills mentioning some form of the word “microchip” had been introduced by state lawmakers, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. But only four of those measures concern human implantation:

Washington’s new law, HB 2303;

Minnesota SF 4881, which, like the Washington bill, would prohibit employers from requesting, requiring or coercing employees or job applicants to be microchipped and create a private right of action for violations;

Oklahoma SB 1656, a much broader bodily-autonomy bill that would establish a “right to refuse any vaccine, medication, microchip, external tracker, or other manufactured product” and prohibit public and private entities from requiring such things in order to receive “public services, admittance to an educational institution, employment, consumer goods or services, access to a place of public accommodation, or any other privilege or right;” and

Tennessee HB 1877, which would have barred government entities from requiring a microchip or other permanent ID marker in order to receive benefits or services, and barred employers from requiring microchipping as a condition of employment, with violators subject to civil penalties up to $10,000, as well as private lawsuits for actual and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The measure would also have made it a Class E felony for individuals, including certain insurance licensees and professional bondsmen, to require someone to be microchipped. But after being referred to subcommittee on February 2, the measure was withdrawn.

The other 30-plus measures deal with the microchipping of animals.

Although human microchipping remains uncommon, Washington HB 2303 fits a wider state trend of setting privacy and autonomy limits before implantable technology becomes an issue in the workplace and elsewhere.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

Approval for Bank-to-Bank Stablecoin Use in ND & More

2026-03-31T18:38:00Z

ND Regulators Approve Bank-to-Bank Stablecoin Use

North Dakota’s Industrial Commission approved the use of the state bank’s planned stablecoin, the Roughrider Coin, for bank-to-bank transactions. Ten banks have expressed interest in participating in the North Dakota Banks’ pilot program for the stablecoin, which will be tied to the value of the U.S. dollar. (NORTH DAKOTA MONITOR)

Protection from Crypto Insurance May be More Limited than Customers Realize

With cryptocurrency theft on the rise—up 22% to over $2.7 billion last year, according to researcher Chainalysis—a growing number of companies have started selling supplementary criminal insurance. But customers may not be as well protected as they think.

Signing up and paying the $4.99 to $299.99 monthly fee for one of the most popular offerings, from Coinbase Global Inc.—which the company says nearly 1 million people have done—doesn’t automatically confer protection. According to the service’s legal agreement, subscribers must also submit photo identification and register for an approved method of two-factor authentication. And some forms of theft aren’t covered, such as transactions subscribers authorize as a result of being duped by a third party or “fraudulent activities.” (INSURANCE JOURNAL)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

NY Chatbot Bill Drawing Tech Resistance

2026-03-31T18:35:00Z

Tech Group Pushing Back on NY Chatbot Bill

A tech industry group is opposing a New York bill (SB 7263) aimed at preventing chatbots from impersonating a variety of licensed professionals, including veterinarians. The Consumer Technology Association, representing over 1,200 tech companies, argues the measure would hinder chatbots from providing basic information and expose operators to frivolous lawsuits. (PLURIBUS NEWS, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Passage of KS Bill Imposing Dispensing Fee on PBMs & More

2026-03-31T18:32:00Z

KS Lawmakers Pass PBM Bill

A bill aimed at tightening regulations on PBMs (SB 360), but which appeared unlikely to move forward this session, was inserted into another bill (SB 20) during a conference committee hearing and passed by the House and Senate. Opponents of the measure attempted to send it back to conference committee over a $10.50 dispensing fee the bill would require PBMs to pay pharmacies on all prescriptions they fill, which those critics said would raise insurance fees, ultimately costing consumers more. (KANSAS REFLECTOR, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

IA Lawmakers Pass Bill to Block Foreign Adversaries of US from Operating Hospitals

Iowa’s Legislature passed a bill that would bar China, North Korea and Russia from obtaining a license to “establish, conduct or maintain a hospital or health care facility” in the state. The bill now goes to Gov. Kim Reynolds (R). (KCCI)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

States Battle Feds over Prediction Markets

2026-03-31T12:00:00Z

Who could have predicted this? Prediction markets have emerged as one of the biggest stories of 2026.

The online platforms and apps, which allow users to bet on anything from who will win the Oscar for best actor to the temperature in Los Angeles tomorrow, have grown from an obsession of the gambling industry press to an obsession of the mainstream media in short order, with countless stories about the disruptive business model coming from major outlets.

One notable example is the story that New York Times journalist Evan Gorelick wrote in late February about a post of his on X that became the subject of a wager on Tweem.

Things could get rockier as legislators and regulators battle over who has authority over this emerging form of wagering that some critics say is just a stalking horse for inserting sports betting into markets where it’s not already legal.

Critics Say Prediction Markets Are Sports Betting by Another Name

Tweem is one of a growing list of prediction markets, the most well-known being Kalshi and Polymarket. They call themselves financial exchanges where customers buy and sell event contracts—predictions on future events.

Some prediction markets are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a once-obscure federal body that has been suddenly thrust into the limelight thanks to the meteoric rise of prediction markets.

Prediction markets, as disruptors often do, have created conflicts on a variety of fronts, raising ethical questions about the appropriateness of betting on wars and fears about insider trading, in which people with direct knowledge about a future event—like what a YouTube star will say on his next video—can leverage that non-public information into easy money.

But the biggest controversy over prediction markets is their contracts for sporting events, which critics argue are indistinguishable from sports betting.

Sports betting is regulated at the state level. Regulation of some prediction markets at the federal level, however, has raised the possibility that they could offer sports-related contracts in lucrative states where sports betting hasn’t been legalized, like California and Florida.

That prospect has roiled the gambling industry, spurring major national sportsbooks like DraftKings and FanDuel to expand into prediction markets while continuing their traditional operations.

State-level gaming regulators have stepped into the fray, with the Nevada Gaming Control Board suing Kalshi to try to prevent it from operating within the Silver State and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement attempting to enforce a cease-and-desist order against the platform. The latter dispute was featured in a June 2025 ESPN story that declared the legal fight “could shape the future of American sports betting.”

These battles are now spilling over to a statehouse near you.

Dozen States Considering Bills Dealing with Prediction Markets

Lawmakers in at least 13 states have considered bills this year referring specifically to “prediction markets,” according to the LexisNexis State Net legislative tracking system. Indiana has enacted such a measure (HB 1052).

State Lawmakers Attempt to Regulate Prediction Markets

Utah may be the state taking the most aggressive legislative stance towards prediction markets. Its Republican governor, Spencer Cox, just signed HB 243 by Rep. Joseph Elison (R), which expands the state’s already tough laws against gambling.

While the measure does not mention “prediction markets” specifically, it bans proposition or prop bets—where gamblers wager on an individual athlete’s performance in a game—by classifying such bets as gambling in terms broad enough to cover many event-based contracts.

And Cox made it very clear where he stands on the issue of prediction markets, saying in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, that they “are gambling—pure and simple.”

“They are destroying the lives of families and countless Americans, especially young men,” he wrote. “They have no place in Utah.”

Indiana enacted a bill (HB 1052) targeting prediction markets more directly. The measure, signed into law by Gov. Mike Braun (R) this month, prohibits judges from engaging in prediction market wagers related to judicial proceedings.

As of March 27, there were about 30 other bills referring specifically to prediction markets pending in 12 other states, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. They include:

Hawaii’s HB 2198 by Rep. Scot Matayoshi (D) and others, which would include prediction markets in the state’s definition of gambling;

Illinois’ HB 5059 by Rep. Edgar González, Jr. (D), which would also ban people under 21 from using prediction markets, and SB 4168 by Sen. Michael Hastings (D), which would require prediction markets operating in the Prairie State to be licensed;

Kentucky’s HB 904 by Reps. Michael Meredith (R) and Matthew Koch (R), which would prohibit horseracing tracks from contracting with prediction markets;

New Jersey’s SB 3692 by Sen. Shirley Turner (D), which would require prediction markets operating within the Garden State to obtain a sports betting license;

New York’s AB 9251, by Assemblymember Clyde Vanel (D), which would ban prediction markets from taking event contracts on sporting events, and AB 9635 by Assemblymember Phil Steck (D), which would restrict state employees from using information they acquired in their jobs to wager on prediction markets;

Virginia’s HB 271 by Del. Paul Krizek (D) and SB 609 by Sen. Louise Lucas (D), both of which would establish the Virginia Gaming Commission that, among other things, would evaluate the public-policy implications of prediction markets; and

Vermont’s HB 913 by Rep. Thomas Stevens (D), which would bar prediction markets from offering contracts on sporting events.

Federal Regulators and Industry Push Back against State Efforts

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Mike Selig asserted in a video posted to X that despite an “onslaught of state-led litigation,” his commission had “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets.

“The CFTC has regulated these markets for over two decades,” Selig said. “They provide useful functions for society by allowing everyday Americans to hedge commercial risks, like increases in temperature and energy price spikes. They also serve as an important check on our news media and our information streams.”

He concluded his remarks with the warning: “To those who seek to challenge our authority in this space, let me be clear. We will see you in court.”

Kalshi CEO and co-founder Tarek Mansour has similarly argued that the company’s event contracts are federally regulated financial instruments.

“The CFTC is our regulator,” he said in a recent interview. “If the CFTC tells us to stop, we will absolutely stop. If they don’t, then we won’t.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures, meanwhile, has urged Congress to address unregulated sports betting through prediction markets, saying it wanted “language reaffirming existing law and ensuring that unregulated sports betting and casino‑style gambling cannot operate under the guise of ‘event contracts.’”

And Mississippi Sen. David Blount (D), chairman of the Senate Gaming Committee, said on a recent NCSL webinar that prediction market contracts on athletic events are “clearly a violation of state law.”

This fight is likely to continue for some time and could grow more contentious.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

Trump Administration’s Proposed State-Preempting National AI Policy Framework & More

2026-03-25T15:49:00Z

New White House Policy Framework Calls for Blocking State AI Laws

The Trump administration released a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence that, among other things, urges Congress to “preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens to ensure a minimally burdensome national standard,” instead of “fifty discordant ones.”

“States should not be permitted to regulate AI development, because it is an inherently interstate phenomenon with key foreign policy and national security implications,” the policy framework stated.

The proposed national AI standard would not preempt states’ power “to enforce laws of general applicability against AI developers and users,” including those intended to prevent fraud and protect children and consumers. It also would not block state zoning laws, including those dealing with the placement of AI infrastructure.

Republican leaders of the U.S. House, including Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, said the chamber would support the proposed framework. (NEW YORK TIMES, WHITE HOUSE)

States Focus on Privacy of Wearable Recording Devices

First-of-its-kind legislation has been introduced in California (SB 1130) and Louisiana (HB 410) addressing privacy concerns about wearable devices that record audio and video, such as smart glasses. The California measure would update the state’s existing privacy laws to make using wearable technology to record someone without their consent a crime. The Louisiana measure would prohibit anyone from using a wearable device to record an in-person conversation where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy without notifying all parties involved. (PLURIBUS NEWS, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

AI in Healthcare Privacy Bill in VT & More

2026-03-25T15:46:00Z

VT Bill Addresses Privacy of AI in Healthcare

The Vermont House passed a bill (HB 814) to bolster privacy protections around the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare. The bill would establish “neurological rights” to protect individuals’ data from being used without their consent. The bill now goes to the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare. (VTDIGGER, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

States Aim to Block PBMs from Owning Pharmacies

Legislation advancing in Tennessee (SB 2040/HB 1959) would prohibit pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies in the state. Arkansas became the first to pass such a bill (HB 1150 [2025]) last year. Similar proposals failed this year in Indiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Texas, but others are still pending in Arizona, New York and Vermont. (PLURIBUS NEWS, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Legislators Continue to Focus on Forever Chemicals

2026-03-25T09:04:00Z

Nearly two years after the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for so-called forever chemicals, the synthetic compounds remain a focus for state legislators.

Formally known as per- and polyfluorinated substances or PFAS, the chemicals are used to make coatings and products that resist heat, stains, oil, grease and water, such as Teflon.

A growing body of research also indicates they may be dangerous to humans, potentially causing decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, and increased risk of certain cancers.

In 2023, at least 23 states enacted 50 bills concerning PFAS, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The following year, when the EPA under the Biden administration established the nation’s first-ever drinking water standard for the chemicals, state lawmakers in 36 states considered more than 200 bills mentioning PFAS, enacting more than 40 of them, according to NCSL.

Last year, when the EPA under President Trump announced that it intended to roll back parts of the brand-new PFAS standard, more than 300 bills related to PFAS were considered across 39 states, with 32 enacted, NCSL reported.

The wave continues this year. As of March 20, over 200 bills referring to PFAS had been introduced in 32 states, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system.

Six of those bills have already been enacted, one each in Indiana, Maine and Utah, and three in New Jersey. Several more are awaiting gubernatorial action in Virginia.

The activity underscores the findings of a recent NCSL report addressing state and federal action on PFAS.

“State legislative activity around PFAS has significantly increased with lawmakers considering everything from establishing maximum contaminant levels of PFAS to banning the sale of ski waxes containing PFAS,” it stated.

NCSL also explored state legislators’ concerns about PFAS in an interview with a bipartisan pair of lawmakers: Colorado Sen. Lisa Cutter (D)—assistant majority leader and member of the Health and Human Services Committee—and Kentucky Sen. Brandon Smith (R), chair of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

PFAS contamination “affects our land, our soil, our water, and therefore our human health,” Cutter said. “All of those reasons are compelling enough that we need to do something about it.”

Smith’s take was similar.

“Once you kind of look under the tent, you can see how big of a disaster this thing could be if it’s not handled correctly,” he said.

But he also suggested many state lawmakers may not really be aware of the problem.

“It’s not been on a lot of the radar for most members of the General Assembly,” he said. “And I’d say we’re not that different than most states, because we’re dealing with so many other things. But now that it’s shown up, I’m surprised there’s not more of a panic to it, about us trying to get something in place.”

Research Continues to Find Problems with PFAS but Questions Remain

Over the course of just 15 days in late February and early March, two new PFAS studies were released. One showed that babies are exposed to more PFAS before birth than previously known. The other tested vegetables grown on eight Long Island farms for PFAS.

Although the Long Island farm study found PFAS in the produce, the authors noted: “Significant gaps still remain as we begin to understand the widespread detection of PFAS contamination and the impacts to public health. Unlike Europe, the United States has not yet established any maximum level of PFAS exposure in food, leaving the public without clear safety thresholds for dietary exposure.”

Cutter, the Colorado senator, said she believed states should fund research into the health effects of PFAS “because there has not been satisfactory action at the federal level. And any time that we can prove the impacts of something through research and data, that’s going to be able to help us move forward.”

Smith, the Kentucky senator, on the other hand, acknowledged there are “so many things unknown.”

“While I feel like we know quite a bit at this moment,” he said, “tomorrow that could all change because there is so much about it that is contradictory.”

PFAS Legislation Under Consideration in Over Half of States

At least 32 states have considered bills dealing with per- and polyfluorinated substances, or PFAS, this year, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Four states have enacted such measures.

Lawmakers Urge State Action

The two lawmakers seemed to agree that action at the federal level was the best way forward on the issue.

“I think that the federal government has the structure and the funding and the research and the personnel that states would be limited with,” said Smith.

Cutter said that “ideally” PFAS “should be regulated and monitored by the EPA and all the things that we know would be effective. But in the meantime, I think it’s really important for states to take action.”

She also said state action could lead to change through a domino effect.

“Whenever states do something, then another state might do something,” she said. “We get model legislation from NCSL, for example. Or we talk to colleagues at conferences. So once one state starts to do something and other states start to follow along, it’s incumbent on those companies to begin changing the way they do business, if not for moral, ethical reasons, even for economic reasons.”

Smith advocated for a measured approach. He said the idea of going in and looking for PFAS scares industry because, as he sees it, “a lot of industry has been abused before with overregulation, so they’re going to be hesitant about us trying to do something good.”

He said: “We need to come up with something that’s reasonable and that you actually can respond to and do it in a way that actually gets the job done, actually cleans up the scale of what we want to. Set the bar where we can meet it, and don’t give industry something that makes us feel good, and we tell you we’re protecting our families and all that, but it’s a law that we know nobody can comply with.”

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

CA’s Spreading Homeowners Insurance Crisis

2026-03-19T13:39:00Z

CA’s Wildfire-Driven Insurance Crisis Spreads to Lower-Risk Homes

Insurers have stopped covering homes in some California neighborhoods at lower risk of wildfire damage, forcing thousands of homeowners to turn to the state’s insurer of last resort, known as the FAIR Plan. That coverage was intended to be a backstop for those unable to obtain insurance on the private market because they live in areas at high risk for wildfires.

Enrollment in FAIR surged 43% between September 2024 and December 2025, as insurers pulled out of the state following a string of devastating wildfires. But according to an analysis by Bloomberg News, 14% of current FAIR policies cover properties residing largely in urban areas with low fire risk.

“What we’re seeing is that the infection of the market that existed in the high-fire-risk areas has spread into the normal parts of the market,” said Michael Wara, director of Stanford University’s Climate and Energy Policy Program. (INSURANCE JOURNAL)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

WA’s New Ban on Employee Microchipping

2026-03-19T13:36:00Z

WA Enacts Ban on Microchipping Workers

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed a bill (HB 2303) prohibiting companies from requiring their workers to get microchip implants. The new law allows workers to bring civil lawsuits against employers who require them to do so.

There haven’t been any reports of the practice in Washington, but a company in Wisconsin offered implants to its employees in 2017. And as of last year, over 50,000 people around the world had been “chipped,” according to the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs.

Laws similar to Washington’s have been enacted in at least a dozen other states. Nevada’s prohibits workers from even voluntarily being microchipped, while Alabama’s makes violations a felony. (WASHINGTON STANDARD)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

NJ Gov’s Plan to Offset Medicaid Costs & More

2026-03-19T13:34:00Z

NJ Gov Wants Big Employers to Help Cover Cost of Medicaid

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) unveiled a state budget plan that proposes generating $145 million in funding for Medicaid by requiring large employers to pay up to $725 a year for each employee covered by the public health insurance program. Massachusetts has a similar program, and the idea has also been considered elsewhere. (NEW JERSEY MONITOR)

MS Lawmakers Pass Bill to Help Rural Hospitals

The Mississippi Legislature approved a bill (HB 1622) that would establish a pilot program to help the state’s rural hospitals by loosening certificate of need requirements for expansions or improvements. If signed by Gov. Tate Reeves (R), hospitals in small communities would be allowed to open one new facility within five miles of their main campus or make improvements that exceed the existing thresholds of $20 million for nonclinical improvements and $10 million for clinical improvements. (MISSISSIPPI TODAY, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

State Officials’ Focus on Affordability Includes Prescription Drugs

2026-03-18T00:07:00Z

When Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) spoke about the need for affordable healthcare and housing last month, she joined a chorus of governors of both major parties who have made affordability a focus of their annual state of the state addresses.

“Affordability is our highest priority,” said Indiana Gov. Mike Braun (R).

“Affordability has become one of the most talked-about issues in national politics today, and it’s refreshing to hear previous skeptics acknowledge it matters,” said Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R).

“Affordability isn’t a joke or some hoax,” said Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D), apparently referring to comments reportedly made by President Donald Trump dismissing affordability as a “hoax” created by Democrats. “It’s a real and consequential challenge that families across Arizona must grapple with every day,” Hobbs said.

The focus on affordability in state capitols isn’t just talk. State lawmakers have been introducing legislation aimed at lowering the cost of everything from diapers (Maine HB 721) to utility bills. One common area of focus is healthcare and prescription drugs, in particular.

Legislators have actually been working to address the cost of prescription drugs for years, with a few themes figuring prominently, including drug pricing transparency, pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) regulation and, more recently, prescription drug affordability boards (PDABs).

Continuing Focus on PDABs and PBMs in 2026

As of March 2, 28 states had introduced 104 bills concerning prescription drug pricing and payment, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ prescription drug database.

At least eight states have considered over a dozen bills dealing with PDABs, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Bills in four of those states, Hawaii (SB 2933), Louisiana (SB 401), Virginia (HB 483/SB 271) and West Virginia (HB 5149), would establish PDABs.

A bill introduced last year in Maine, and enacted in January (SB 314), meanwhile, makes changes to the Maine PDAB's structure and duties, including shifting its focus from establishing prescription drug spending targets for public payers to assessing strategies to reduce prescription drug costs for both public and private payers. Those strategies include reference-based pricing, transparency requirements for supply chain entities, and upper payment limits.

Legislation concerning PBMs is also ongoing, with NCSL’s database identifying 24 states that have introduced over 100 such measures this year. About 50 measures in 18 states deal substantively with PBMs, based on their bill summaries.

Challenges to Affordability Efforts

The continuing wave of legislation underscores the considerable attention state lawmakers are placing on healthcare affordability. But efforts to rein in costs are open to challenges—and criticism.

In September, researchers at the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University Law Center warned that the pharmaceutical industry is fighting back against the prescription drug affordability proposals by employing a novel legal strategy involving the U.S. Constitution’s implicit restriction on states’ authority to pass laws that impinge on interstate commerce.

“Under this so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, a state cannot discriminatorily favor in-state commerce while burdening out-of-state commerce,” the researchers wrote. “Even when a state law does not engage in this kind of economic protectionism, it may still violate the Dormant Commerce Clause if the law’s in-state benefits are far outweighed by the burdens it imposes on interstate commerce.”

While the report says the Supreme Court has historically only recognized these two categories of Dormant Commerce Clause violations, some lower courts have recognized a third category of state laws that seek to regulate transactions occurring beyond a state’s borders. Drug companies have “repeatedly” used this argument to invalidate state prescription drug laws affecting out-of-state companies, the report said.

Meanwhile, some states that have implemented PDABs have since scrapped them. Only a handful of states’ PDABs have statutory authority to set drug price upper payment limits (UPLs). And so far, Colorado’s is the only one that has actually approved such a limit, on the rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune disease drug Enbrel.

“This groundbreaking upper payment limit on Enbrel has the potential to save $32 million from drug spending,” Sophia Hennessy, lead policy research coordinator for the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, said in a statement at the time. “We’re thrilled with the board’s decision today that helps ensure more patients can afford their vital medications.”

But Michael Hodin, CEO of the Global Coalition on Aging, and Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest—groups with ties to the pharmaceutical industry—wrote last year: “PDABs have wasted millions in taxpayer dollars and threatened access to crucial treatments and the stability of the supply chain—all while delivering zero savings to patients, disincentivizing biomedical innovation, and potentially harming healthy aging.”

Research by the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, which also has connections with pharmaceutical companies and associations, found that PDABs and their price limits “will likely increase patient costs and hinder access to prescribed medicines.”

Still, consumers’ worries about the high cost of healthcare are likely to trump such criticisms in the minds of state lawmakers, particularly this year.

“Heading into this midterm election year,” said the health policy research firm KFF when it released polling in late January, “the cost of health care tops the public’s economic anxieties and more than 4 in 10 voters say the issue will have a major impact on their vote.”

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

State Net

‘Junk Fee’ Ban Advancing in IL

IL House Passes ‘Junk Fee’ Bill

Anthropic’s New AI Model Too Powerful for Public Use & More

Anthropic Not Releasing New AI Model to Public

Ballot Measures Aimed at Limiting Data Center Development

MN Lawmakers Aim to Prohibit Data Center NDAs

ME Data Privacy Bill Remains Alive

CT Bill Focusing on AI in Employment

CT Lawmakers Target AI in Employment

Washington Joins States Limiting Employer-Mandated Worker Microchipping

Legislators Remain Concerned about Employer Surveillance

Worker Microchipping Laws Enacted in Dozen States

Human Microchipping Remains Rare

Approval for Bank-to-Bank Stablecoin Use in ND & More

ND Regulators Approve Bank-to-Bank Stablecoin Use

Protection from Crypto Insurance May be More Limited than Customers Realize

NY Chatbot Bill Drawing Tech Resistance

Tech Group Pushing Back on NY Chatbot Bill

Passage of KS Bill Imposing Dispensing Fee on PBMs & More

KS Lawmakers Pass PBM Bill

IA Lawmakers Pass Bill to Block Foreign Adversaries of US from Operating Hospitals

States Battle Feds over Prediction Markets

Critics Say Prediction Markets Are Sports Betting by Another Name

Dozen States Considering Bills Dealing with Prediction Markets

State Lawmakers Attempt to Regulate Prediction Markets

Federal Regulators and Industry Push Back against State Efforts

Trump Administration’s Proposed State-Preempting National AI Policy Framework & More

New White House Policy Framework Calls for Blocking State AI Laws

States Focus on Privacy of Wearable Recording Devices

AI in Healthcare Privacy Bill in VT & More

VT Bill Addresses Privacy of AI in Healthcare

States Aim to Block PBMs from Owning Pharmacies

Legislators Continue to Focus on Forever Chemicals

Research Continues to Find Problems with PFAS but Questions Remain

PFAS Legislation Under Consideration in Over Half of States

Lawmakers Urge State Action

CA’s Spreading Homeowners Insurance Crisis

CA’s Wildfire-Driven Insurance Crisis Spreads to Lower-Risk Homes

WA’s New Ban on Employee Microchipping

WA Enacts Ban on Microchipping Workers

NJ Gov’s Plan to Offset Medicaid Costs & More

NJ Gov Wants Big Employers to Help Cover Cost of Medicaid

MS Lawmakers Pass Bill to Help Rural Hospitals

State Officials’ Focus on Affordability Includes Prescription Drugs

Continuing Focus on PDABs and PBMs in 2026

Challenges to Affordability Efforts

Handful of States Considering PDAB Bills