This bill amends several sections of chapter 19.390 RCW and adds a new section. It requires parties to submit written notice to the Washington attorney general at least 60 days before the effective date of any transaction that results in a “material change” in health care operations. The attorney general must assess and collect a single filing fee per transaction according to a tiered schedule based on anticipated Washington transaction value (fees range from $2,500 up to $25,000, with a $2,500 fee for contracting affiliations without asset transfers), may index fees by rule using the U.S. BLS medical care CPI, and must deposit fee receipts into the antitrust revolving fund (RCW 43.10.215). Parties must notify the attorney general within 30 days after completion whether the transaction was consummated, enjoined, or abandoned. The attorney general must request additional information under RCW 19.86.110 within 30 days of receiving notice, and if such a request is made the transaction may not proceed until 30 days after the parties certify substantial compliance with the request; parties may also voluntarily provide more information. The attorney general may later investigate or enforce state or federal antitrust laws. The bill adds or clarifies definitions used in the chapter (for example, acquisition, contracting affiliation, control, health care services, provider organization, hospital system, and related entity types) and identifies affected entities including hospitals, hospital systems, provider organizations, carriers, third-party administrators, state-owned or state-operated entities, and public hospital districts. It exempts parties to a contracting affiliation between a state-owned or state-operated entity and a public hospital district from the filing fee noted in the new section. The bill places limits on public disclosure of information produced pursuant to a demand: such materials must not be produced for inspection or copying under chapter 42.56 RCW by the producing person unless a superior court orders production for good cause. The attorney general must publish quarterly on its website a notice of pending and completed transactions listing the information submitted under RCW 19.390.040(1) and (2), and must notify the secretary of state when an entity in a covered material-change transaction is a nonprofit corporation. The act states that nothing in the chapter expands the attorney general’s authority under chapter 19.86 RCW or other antitrust laws, failure to comply does not create a private right of action, and it contains a severability clause. The provided text is incomplete in two respects: the sentence describing how information submitted to the attorney general is to be maintained and used is cut off and the procedural meaning of “demand” and the specific criteria for a “material change” under RCW 19.390.030(2)(a), (b), and (d) are not included in the extracted facts.

If enacted, companies and organizations that make a "material change" to how health care is provided in Washington—like hospitals, hospital systems, provider organizations, insurers, carriers, and entities buying control of health care businesses—must give the state attorney general 60 days’ written notice, pay a one-time filing fee (ranging from $2,500 up to $25,000 depending on the transaction’s Washington value, with a $2,500 charge for certain contracting affiliations that don’t transfer assets), and later tell the attorney general within 30 days whether the deal was completed, blocked, or abandoned. The attorney general can ask for more information within 30 days of the notice, and if that happens the deal cannot close until 30 days after the parties certify they have substantially complied; fee revenue goes into the state antitrust revolving fund, the attorney general must publish a quarterly list of pending and completed transactions, and the attorney general will notify the secretary of state when a nonprofit is involved. Practically, affected parties will see added upfront costs and paperwork, a new risk of delay if the attorney general requests more information, and ongoing reporting and transparency through the published lists; the attorney general gains routine oversight and fee revenue and can still pursue antitrust enforcement, while private parties do not gain a private right to sue over compliance. The facts provided omit the full confidentiality cross-reference and the precise statutory language defining what counts as a “material change,” so the exact triggers and disclosure protections are partly unclear from the material given.