https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/en-USTelligent Community 9https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/approval-for-bank-to-bank-stablecoin-use-in-nd-moreTue, 31 Mar 2026 18:38:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:1aa08e0c-269b-4e7a-a6ef-fe9c2bdfeb9bAlyzza AustriacoND 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurancehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/ny-chatbot-bill-drawing-tech-resistanceTue, 31 Mar 2026 18:35:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:de297590-a243-4aad-86ae-ab1b11ec4419Alyzza AustriacoTech 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesTechnologyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/passage-of-ks-bill-imposing-dispensing-fee-on-pbms-moreTue, 31 Mar 2026 18:32:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:8ea73fa3-cd24-4199-8241-28079135e217Alyzza AustriacoKS 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/states-battle-feds-over-prediction-marketsTue, 31 Mar 2026 12:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:46eaf8d2-83ab-4a23-a6d3-186807928209Mary Anne PeckWho 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 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.Capitol JournalSpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/trump-administration-s-proposed-state-preempting-national-ai-policy-framework-moreWed, 25 Mar 2026 15:49:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:0eafbe8c-faff-4010-9a9a-1477c671d177Alyzza AustriacoNew 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesTechnologyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/ai-in-healthcare-privacy-bill-in-vt-moreWed, 25 Mar 2026 15:46:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:1bf6b7b2-3001-4350-a338-34188e85ec2bAlyzza AustriacoVT 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/legislators-continue-to-focus-on-forever-chemicalsWed, 25 Mar 2026 09:04:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:0fcc2b4e-0d46-47fe-bf96-a370dbb46cc7Mary Anne PeckNearly 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 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.Capitol JournalEnvironmental LawSpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/ca-s-spreading-homeowners-insurance-crisisThu, 19 Mar 2026 13:39:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:09d27f47-52c6-4d69-b900-e843644a0a54Alyzza AustriacoCA’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 CLARKCapitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurance WeekInsurance/Finance Weekhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/wa-s-new-ban-on-employee-microchippingThu, 19 Mar 2026 13:36:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:68d48003-765a-484d-acd5-2239b7cb4eefAlyzza AustriacoWA 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 CLARKCapitol JournalThis Week in the StatesLabor WeekLaborhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/nj-gov-s-plan-to-offset-medicaid-costs-moreThu, 19 Mar 2026 13:34:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:9ccc5fd0-9308-4bcf-8466-831f0c381365Alyzza AustriacoNJ 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 CLARKCapitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/state-officials-focus-on-affordability-includes-prescription-drugs-495440276Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:07:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:ec318db3-aedc-405b-931a-41017a52b778Mary Anne PeckWhen 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 Handful of States Considering PDAB Bills So far this year, at least eight states have taken up legislation concerning prescription drug affordability boards. Measures in four of those states would establish PDABs, while a measure enacted in Maine ( SB 314 ) makes changes to the structure and duties of the state’s existing PDAB.Capitol JournalSpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/proposed-stock-buyback-ban-for-tax-break-recipients-in-miWed, 18 Feb 2026 16:50:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:d6e68291-be15-4103-b9bd-a999d74e5ecbAlyzza AustriacoMI to Weigh Ban on Stock Buybacks for Companies Receiving Tax Breaks Michigan Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D) introduced a bill ( SB 783 ) that would prohibit publicly traded companies receiving economic incentives through the Michigan Strategic Fund from repurchasing their own stock. Violators would have to repay any incentives they received and pay a 10% penalty. ( YAHOO! FINANCE , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurancehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/va-s-paid-sick-leave-billWed, 18 Feb 2026 16:49:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:f6796cba-4fba-41d2-9d05-6ac549eb9bbeAlyzza AustriacoVA House Passes Paid Sick Leave Bill Virginia’s House of Delegates approved a bill ( HB 5 ) that would expand the state’s current paid sick leave law, which applies only to a small segment of workers, to include all public and private sector employees. If enacted, workers could earn an hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work. ( VIRGINIA MERCURY , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesLabor & Employmenthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/va-prescription-drug-affordability-board-measure-moreWed, 18 Feb 2026 16:47:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:0b6e7d36-2d8a-498b-b504-b49d639c3194Alyzza AustriacoVA Lawmakers Okay Prescription Drug Affordability Board Virginia lawmakers have passed legislation ( SB 271 / HB 483 ) that would create a prescription drug affordability board to review drug prices and set limits on how much state-regulated health plans can pay for drugs. The legislation is similar to that enacted in other states, but Virginia’s would be the first linking the board’s activity to drug price negotiations between manufacturers and Medicare mandated by the federal Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. ( PLURIBUS NEWS , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) Federal Government Targeting Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising After decades of debating whether to restrict direct-to-consumer drug advertising, the Trump administration and federal lawmakers appear to be moving in that direction. Last February, U.S. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) introduced a bill (SB 483) prohibiting drugs from being advertised directly to consumers for three years after they receive FDA approval. The measure is still pending. In September President Trump issued a presidential memorandum calling for the reversal of a 1997 policy change that allowed drug advertising on television. On the same day, the FDA announced that it was “sending thousands of letters warning pharmaceutical companies to remove misleading ads and issuing approximately 100 cease-and-desist letters to companies with deceptive ads.” ( NEW YORK TIMES ) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare WeekHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/new-privacy-concern-for-state-lawmakers-geolocation-data-privacyWed, 18 Feb 2026 13:07:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:4af2af42-0d4a-4407-9a54-12957964dfdeMary Anne PeckGeolocation data has become a new frontier in privacy protection. This year, Virginia could join Maryland and Oregon as the first states to prohibit the sale of information that provides the precise geographic location of a device, object or user through GPS , IP address tracking , Wi-Fi triangulation or cellular network signals , among other means . Maryland’s and Oregon’s bans were only recently enacted in the past four months (SB 541 [2025] and HB 2008 [2025], respectively). Virginia’s SB 338 , by Sens. Russet Perry (D) and David Suetterlein (R), would ban geolocation data sales in the Old Dominion starting in July. Consumer Reports, the nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization that publishes an investigative journalism magazine with the same name, has announced its support for the Virginia bill. “Location data is among the most sensitive information companies can collect, potentially revealing visits to reproductive or mental health clinics, political rallies, places of worship, and other potentially sensitive locations,” said Matt Schwartz, policy analyst at Consumer Reports. “At a time when location tracking is increasingly being weaponized against consumers, stopping the commercial sale of consumers’ location data is one of the most effective steps lawmakers can take to safeguard consumer privacy.” In a January letter to the chair of the Virginia Senate General Laws and Technology Committee, Consumer Reports joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Public Interest Research Group and Tech Equity Action in urging passage of SB 338. “The location data market is a multi-billion-dollar industry centered on collecting and selling people’s everyday comings and goings, often collected from people’s mobile devices and often without their knowledge or explicit consent,” they wrote. “Location data is an extremely sensitive form of personal data. Researchers have shown that 95 percent of individuals can be uniquely identified from just four spatio-temporal points; most companies that collect this information have orders of magnitude more data than that.” SB 338 was unanimously passed by both the committee and the Senate as a whole , and it has now moved on to the House of Representatives where a similar bill also supported by Consumer Reports floundered last year . The organization, which has developed model legislation for stopping the sale of geolocation data , said it expects other states to at least consider bans in 2026, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington. Other Bans Under Consideration According to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system, over 80 bills referring to “geolocation data” and “privacy” have been introduced in 26 states this year. Only five of those measures, however, including Virginia SB 338, focus directly on geolocation data privacy, according to their bill summaries. Hawaii Sen. Chris Lee (D) introduced two bills to ban the sale of both geolocation data and internet browser data. SB 3017 and SB 1163 both bar selling geolocation information without explicit, opt-in consent, while the latter bill adds exemptions for law enforcement investigations, Customer Proprietary Network Information and telecommunications carriers operating according to federal CPNI rules. Maryland SB 569 by Sen. Arthur Ellis (D) seeks to strengthen the state’s online data privacy laws by establishing stricter limits on geolocation information and other personal and sensitive data. The bill targets the sensitive data of consumers under the age of 18. New Jersey AB 441 , by Assemblyman Michael Venezia (D) would bar businesses that track or sell precise geolocation data from disclosing any information about someone at or near a reproductive health care facility. Two years ago, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) reported that an anti-abortion group used mobile phone location data to send misinformation to people who visited 600 reproductive health clinics in 48 states. Industry Opposition to Bans In a letter to Oregon lawmakers considering HB 2008 last year, a coalition of advertisers provided a “non-exhaustive list of concerns” they had with the bill. Noting first that the state’s privacy law already required companies to obtain consumers’ consent before processing or selling their location data, the officials from the Association of National Advertisers, American Association of Advertising Agencies, Interactive Advertising Bureau, American Advertising Federation and Digital Advertising Alliance said HB 2008 would deprive Oregon residents of “access to critical services and benefits that depend on location data.” One of those benefits was receiving “relevant content and ads.” “Without the ability to disclose location data for advertising purposes, subject to consumers’ opt-in consent, businesses will have a more difficult time, and face higher costs, reaching individuals with relevant marketing, and Oregonians will not be alerted to products and services they desire that are near to them,” they wrote. The groups also argued that the measure could impede emergency notifications. “Oregonians may lose access to emergency alerts for floods, wildfires, and other community emergencies, as these important, real-time alerts rely on disclosure of location data to function,” they stated. In addition, they argued the bill could hinder “effective fraud prevention.” “The responsible disclosure of location data allows anti-fraud and identity protection services to flag suspicious behavior and protect vulnerable communities,” they wrote. “For example, companies can more easily detect credit card theft or fraud if they or their service providers have access to location data showing that a consumer is not in the location where a purchase is being made. If passed, HB 2008 would impede entities’ ability to responsibly use and disclose location data to prevent fraudulent activity and reach out to consumers to confirm their purchases.” Bills Dealing with Geolocation Data Privacy Introduced in Half of States Bills referring to “location data” and “privacy” have been introduced in at least 26 states this year, according to the LexisNexis State Net legislative tracking system. Bills in five of those states focus directly on geolocation data privacy, according to their bill summaries. Start of Trend? The advertisers’ objections didn’t stop Oregon lawmakers from passing HB 2008. And in mid-February, Bloomberg Law ’s privacy reporter Tonya Riley wrote that at least a half dozen unidentified states “without comprehensive privacy laws” are considering bills to ban the sale of geolocation data, highlighting “an evolution in lawmakers’ understanding of consumer privacy since California passed its first-in-the-nation law nearly a decade ago.” Riley noted that attorneys general in both California and Texas have also raised concerns over geolocation data. This certainly appears to be an emerging legislative trend. It wasn’t on our radar when we published our forecast of the top issues for 2026 —but it is now. —By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH 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.Capitol JournalTechnologySpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/controversial-insurance-bill-in-fl-moreWed, 11 Feb 2026 18:47:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:4d17c802-84f0-4fb3-86f2-d56071481ae9Alyzza AustriacoInsurance Bill Raises Concerns in FL A fast-moving bill ( SB 1028 ) in Florida, sponsored by Sen. Joe Gruters (R), chairman of the Senate’s Banking and Insurance Committee, would require Citizens Property Insurance, the state’s insurer of last resort, to set up a clearinghouse for commercial property coverage. But Florida Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworsky said setting up a clearinghouse could cost $40 million, and some brokers and agents say the measure would benefit one company — Ryan Turner Specialty, part of one of the nation’s largest wholesale brokerages — while costing them more in fees and surcharges. ( INSURANCE JOURNAL , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) Ruling on Anti-ESG Investing Law in TX Could Spur More Challenges A federal judge struck down a 2021 Texas law requiring state and local government agencies to divest from financial firms that use environmental, social or governance, or ESG, factors in investment decisions, saying the law violated First Amendment free speech protections. Bryan McGannon, managing director of the U.S. Sustainable Investment Forum, said the ruling paves the way for legal challenges to similar laws in other states, including Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tennessee and Utah and West Virginia. ( INSURANCE JOURNAL ) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurancehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/pbm-reform-bill-in-ms-moreWed, 11 Feb 2026 18:45:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:097c7215-1aed-49c1-be92-39d59d05e43fAlyzza AustriacoMS House Passes PBM Reform Bill Mississippi’s House of Representatives passed a bill ( HB 1665 ) that would prohibit pharmacy benefit managers from employing clawbacks when patients’ copayments exceed the actual cost of their drugs. The bill would also require PBMs to reimburse independent pharmacists within 7 days of receiving electronic claims from them. ( MAGNOLIA TRIBUNE ) NM Enacts Interstate Doctor Compact New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed a bill ( SB 1 ) making it easier for out-of-state doctors to become licensed in New Mexico, making the state the 42 nd to join the interstate physician compact. The state’s House has also passed six other interstate medical compacts, including those covering physician assistants and emergency medical services personnel. ( SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/momentum-around-data-center-legislation-growsWed, 11 Feb 2026 15:15:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:5e8d884e-2083-4ed0-b0a3-9b5bbb39344fMary Anne PeckIn June, Kansas became the 37th state to offer tax incentives to data centers, underscoring how the massive warehouse-like facilities that support the internet have become a priority for states and state legislators across the country. Indeed, the National Conference of State Legislators predicts that a litany of issues surrounding data centers will be big in 2026, from tax incentives and prevailing wage requirements to energy usage and nondisclosure agreements. Meanwhile, data centers have been in the news all over the nation. Maryland Matters reported that more data center regulations could be coming to the Terrapin State. Texas is projected to become the top market for data centers in just two years, said The Texas Tribune . The Georgia Recorder wrote about a wave of bipartisan bills concerning data centers introduced in the Peach State after an electric utility asked to expand its capacity to meet rising demand. And The Florida Phoenix described a bill to regulate data centers in the Sunshine State . The Wisconsin Examiner reported that the lower house of the Badger State Legislature approved data center regulations . And The Daily Yonder, also in Wisconsin, said rural residents have organized opposition to data centers. Colorado Newsline wrote about a Centennial State bill to provide tax breaks to data centers . The New York Times compared President Trump’s embrace of data centers with Alabama residents’ opposition to them . “States are campaigning to attract the data centers AI companies will need, and bracing for impacts on energy grids and the environment,” said Governing magazine, while asking, “ Which States Are Leading the Data Center Race? ” late last year. “Data centers will continue to be a big policy issue moving forward in 2026,” said Alex McWard, NCSL senior policy specialist for environment, energy & transportation, on a recent podcast . “However, the direction states will move could vary quite a bit.” Legislators Not Just Looking at Tax Incentives McWard said on the NCSL podcast that, for a while, state legislators have been focused on attracting data centers. And that sort of activity will continue, he said. Indeed, state lawmakers in West Virginia were so intent on incentivizing data center development there last year that they passed a bill (HB 2014) that, among other things, prohibited local governments from imposing noise, lighting, land use and other restrictions on such facilities. “Data centers have significantly, or can significantly, benefit the local economies through job creation, attracting investment,” said Del. Clay Riley (R), one of the measure’s sponsors, as The Associated Press reported . “This bill, as it sits, could facilitate that development and boost economic growth.” But McWard said concerns about data centers’ energy and water usage are also now “leading to some pushback.” He said a “great example” of that was in Virginia’s election this past November, in which “data center development was one of the primary points of contention.” He noted that “Virginia is a unique example, as it has the highest rate, highest concentration of data centers in the country. But regardless of whether a state is looking to increase data center development or not, they’re likely going to be paying greater attention to the energy usage of their data centers.” In regard to that particular issue, McWard said what we’re likely to see is states continuing to “consider specific utility rate schedules for data centers and other large loads.” “The price of electricity is the primary concern for most legislators’ constituents,” he said. “So, regardless of state energy or economics, not wanting data centers to ramp up electricity rates is something I think most legislators will agree on.” According to State Net® data, at least 100 bills dealing substantially with data centers have been introduced in 25 states since the beginning of November. The bills cover the range of issues predicted by NCSL, namely tax incentives for data centers, efforts to rein in their energy and water usage, and attempts to conceal their activities behind NDAs. The number of bills introduced in some states suggests data centers may be of particular concern there. In Illinois, for example, 10 such bills have been introduced. In both Arizona and New Jersey, 11. In Tennessee, 13. And in Virginia, 32. Data Center Bills Introduced in At Least Half of States Over 170 bills dealing substantially with data centers have been introduced in 31 states this year, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. More than 30 of those bills were introduced in Virginia, which has the highest concentration of data centers in the nation. Attention to Data Centers May Still Just be Starting Despite all the legislative and media attention data centers have been drawing lately, we may still be seeing just the beginning of activity on this issue. With data centers’ growing impact on energy grids — a Bloomberg analysis found wholesale electricity costs rose as much as 267 percent over the last five years near data center hubs — leaders at all levels are taking notice. U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said in December they are investigating whether big tech companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta are passing along the utility costs of data centers to typical Americans. “Utility companies have spent billions of dollars updating the electrical grid to accommodate the unprecedented energy demands of AI [artificial intelligence] data centers and appear to recoup the costs by raising residential utility bills,” the senators wrote in letters to several Big Tech companies . “Through these utility price increases, American families bankroll the electricity costs of trillion-dollar tech companies. To add insult to injury for hard-pressed consumers, they are forced to pay higher prices while many data centers receive discounted rates as the utility companies are trying to attract their business. The contracts between data centers and utility companies that underlie these arrangements are almost always confidential, leaving the public in the dark on why their electric bill keeps going up.” Late last year, we forecast that data centers would be a hot issue for 2026 . It looks like the temperature is starting to get cranked up. —By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH 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.Capitol JournalTechnologySpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/va-s-consumer-geolocation-data-privacy-bill-moreWed, 04 Feb 2026 17:11:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:68ba18e1-a3ff-4685-b933-4a210e0acd5eAlyzza AustriacoStates Target Sale of Consumer Geolocation Data Virginia’s Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology advanced a bill ( SB 338 ) that would amend the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act to prohibit the sale of consumers’ precise geolocation data. The chamber unanimously passed a similar measure last year but it was not advanced in the House, according to a press release from Consumer Reports . In a letter to the chair of the Senate General Laws and Technology Committee, representatives from Consumer Reports, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and Tech Equity Action, expressed support for SB 338, saying: “It is especially imperative that we protect the privacy rights of our communities at a time of increasing attacks on immigrants, minority community members, LGBTQ people, and individuals seeking reproductive health care.” Consumer Reports has also drafted model legislation to give lawmakers a framework for protecting consumer geolocation data. Maryland and Oregon have passed laws banning the sale of such information. And several other states, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington are expected to consider similar bans. ( CONSUMER REPORTS , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) SD Legislative Leaders Introduce Data Center Bill of Rights South Dakota Senate President Pro Tem Chris Karr (R) and Speaker of the House Jon Hansen (R) have introduced legislation ( SB 135 ) they’re calling the “Data Center Bill of Rights.” Among other things, the bill would require data center operators to cover all costs associated with providing electricity to their facilities; prohibit the state government from granting tax breaks for data centers, although it wouldn’t prevent local governments from doing so; and prohibit the state government from preempting the authority of local governments “to adopt ordinances and resolutions limiting, prohibiting, or otherwise regulating the construction, development, or operation of data centers.” ( SOUTH DAKOTA PUBLIC BROADCASTING , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesTechnologyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/states-course-change-on-certificate-of-need-laws-moreWed, 04 Feb 2026 17:06:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:44302717-1932-46dc-9c46-1033921b4d51Alyzza AustriacoStates Easing Up on Certificate of Need Laws Over a dozen states have introduced or are considering legislation this year to scale back their certificate of need (CON) laws requiring healthcare providers to obtain government approval before building or expanding facilities. At least a dozen states have already repealed or allowed their CON laws—formerly a ubiquitous strategy for controlling healthcare costs—to expire in an effort to spur construction of medical facilities, particularly in underserved rural areas. ( PLURIBUS NEWS ) Bill to Regulate AI Therapy in CA California Sen. Steve Padilla (D) introduced a bill ( SB 903 ) that would ban artificial intelligence from providing or advertising therapy or psychotherapy services without oversight by a licensed professional. The measure comes amid growing popularity of “AI therapists.” ( IMPERIAL VALLEY PRESS , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) Drug Affordability Board Measure Advances in VA Virginia’s Senate Commerce and Labor Committee advanced a bill ( HB 483 ) that would create a prescription drug affordability board with the power to limit drug prices. The state’s General Assembly has passed similar legislation twice before, but it was vetoed both times by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R). New Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D) position on the measure was unknown. ( VIRGINIA SCOPE , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Law