This bill amends existing law in RCW 70.14.100 and RCW 70.14.110 to change procedures for selecting and reviewing health technologies under the state’s health technology assessment process. It limits initial selections to up to six technologies in the first year after June 7, 2006, and up to eight in the second year after that date, allows the administrator (in consultation with participating agencies and the health technology clinical committee) to select technologies including by petition from interested parties, and gives selection priority to technologies with established or recommended patient access under federal Medicare decisions or nationally recognized expert treatment guidelines when there are concerns about safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, significant use variation, high state expenditures, and adequate evidence to review. The bill requires the administrator to contract for a systematic, evidence-based assessment (preferably with an AHRQ-designated evidence-based practice center or similar entity), to start no sooner than 30 days after an internet notice, to consider data submitted by participating agencies and any interested parties, and to give greatest weight to the most valid and reliable evidence while accounting for impacts on specific populations. For life‑threatening or rare diseases the committee must evaluate applicable clinical trials and may consider clinical expert information when randomized trials are unethical, impractical, or impossible. The committee must determine for each reviewed technology any conditions for inclusion as a covered benefit in participating agencies’ health care programs and, if covered, the medical necessity criteria administering agencies must use. Determinations must be made in an open process with public comment, may use ad hoc advisory groups (whose members are immune from civil liability for good faith official acts and must meet conflict-of-interest terms), and must be consistent with federal Medicare decisions and expert guidelines unless substantial evidence supports a contrary determination. Technologies must be considered for rereview at least every 18 months; the health care authority must publish receipt of submissions within 30 days; and the committee must complete and communicate a determination to the submitting party within 180 days of submission, including a written substantive rationale for adverse determinations. This is a procedural amendment to existing law governing health technology assessment and coverage determinations, not a criminal or penalty change. The extracted text does not define who the “administrator” or “participating agencies” are, includes editorial markup suggesting prior language changes, and contains references to years after June 7, 2006 that lack surrounding statutory history or explanation.

If enacted, the law creates a formal, time‑bound process for picking and systematically reviewing selected health technologies: an administrator (in consultation with agencies and the health technology clinical committee) will select technologies subject to numerical caps tied to years after June 7, 2006, require contracting with evidence‑based practice centers to assess safety, effectiveness, and cost‑effectiveness, post receipts within 30 days, complete determinations and notify submitters within 180 days, and rereview determinations at least every 18 months. The committee must set whether and under what conditions technologies become covered benefits and must align with federal Medicare or expert guidelines unless the systematic review provides strong contrary evidence; interested parties can petition for reviews and will receive written rationale for adverse determinations. Practically, this shifts workload and likely costs onto the health care authority/administrator and participating agencies through new contracting and review duties, and it gives evidence‑centers and clinical advisory groups predictable work (with advisory members shielded from civil liability for good‑faith official acts). Interested parties and state patients may see faster, more standardized coverage decisions that usually track Medicare, but the document omits clear identification of who exactly serves as the “administrator” and the “participating agencies,” and the reliance on selection limits tied to 2006 makes it unclear how many technologies may be chosen now.