Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 48.44.309 (2026)
Legislative finding
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds and declares that there is a paramount concern that the right of the people to obtain access to health care in all its facets is being impaired. The legislature further finds that there is a heavy reliance by the public upon prepaid health care service agreements and insurance, whether profit or nonprofit, as the only effective manner in which the large majority of the people can obtain access to quality health care. Further, the legislature finds that health care service agreements may be anticompetitive because of the exclusion of other licensed forms of health care and that because of the high costs of health care, there is a need for competition to reduce these costs. It is, therefore, declared to be in the public interest that these contracts as a form of insurance be regulated under the police power of the state to assure that all the people have the greatest access to health care services.
[ 1983 c 286 s 1.]
Notes:
Severability—1983 c 286: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1983 c 286 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1993–1997 · leading case: Leingang v. Pierce Co. Med. Bureau, Inc., 930 P.2d 288 (Wash. 1997).
Leingang v. Pierce Co. Med. Bureau, Inc., 930 P.2d 288 (Wash. 1997). “020(1) with RCW 48.44.309, for the purposes of that case, the court agreed with the parties that "general rules respecting insurance policies should be applied in resolving the public policy issue.”
Leingang v. Pierce Cnty. Med. Bureau, Inc., 131 Wash. 2d 133 (Wash. 1997). “020(1) with RCW 48.44.309, for the purposes of that case, the court agreed with the parties that "general rules respecting insurance policies should be applied in resolving the public policy issue.”
Brown v. Snohomish Cnty. Physicians Corp., 845 P.2d 334 (Wash. 1993). “corporation, cooperative group, or association, which is sponsored by or otherwise intimately connected with a provider or group of providers, who or which not otherwise being engaged in the insurance business, accepts prepayment for health care services from or for the benefit…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.