Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.100 (2026)
Health technology selection and assessment
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 5915.SL) ***
(1) The administrator, in consultation with participating agencies and the committee, shall select the health technologies to be reviewed by the committee under RCW 70.14.110. Up to six may be selected for review in the first year after June 7, 2006, and up to eight may be selected in the second year after June 7, 2006. In making the selection, priority shall be given to any technology for which:
(a) There are concerns about its safety, efficacy, or cost-effectiveness, especially relative to existing alternatives, or significant variations in its use;
(b) Actual or expected state expenditures are high, due to demand for the technology, its cost, or both; and
(c) There is adequate evidence available to conduct the complete review.
(2) A health technology for which the committee has made a determination under RCW 70.14.110 shall be considered for rereview at least once every eighteen months, beginning the date the determination is made. The administrator, in consultation with participating agencies and the committee, shall select the technology for rereview if he or she decides that evidence has since become available that could change a previous determination. Upon rereview, consideration shall be given only to evidence made available since the previous determination.
(3) Pursuant to a petition submitted by an interested party, the health technology clinical committee may select health technologies for review that have not otherwise been selected by the administrator under subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
(4) Upon the selection of a health technology for review, the administrator shall contract for a systematic evidence-based assessment of the technology's safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. The contract shall:
(a) Be with an evidence-based practice center designated as such by the federal agency for health care research and quality, or other appropriate entity;
(b) Require the assessment be initiated no sooner than thirty days after notice of the selection of the health technology for review is posted on the internet under RCW 70.14.130;
(c) Require, in addition to other information considered as part of the assessment, consideration of: (i) Safety, health outcome, and cost data submitted by a participating agency; and (ii) evidence submitted by any interested party; and
(d) Require the assessment to: (i) Give the greatest weight to the evidence determined, based on objective indicators, to be the most valid and reliable, considering the nature and source of the evidence, the empirical characteristic of the studies or trials upon which the evidence is based, and the consistency of the outcome with comparable studies; and (ii) take into account any unique impacts of the technology on specific populations based upon factors such as sex, age, ethnicity, race, or disability.
[ 2006 c 307 s 3.]
Notes:
Captions not law—Conflict with federal requirements—2006 c 307: See notes following RCW 70.14.080.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2012–2018 · leading case: Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” See RCW 70.14.100 (procedures and criteria for selection of health care technologies for HTCC review).”
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.100(1)(a). The HTCC obtains a report from an evidence-based research center and requires the researchers to evaluate evidence related to a medical procedure's safety, health outcome, and cost data, and evidence *648 submitted by any interested party.”
Michael E. Murray v. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 70.14.100(2). The HCA administrator selects technologies for rereview if new evidence has become available that could change the HTCC’s determination.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.100(1)(a) — 1 case
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.100(1)(a). The HTCC obtains a report from an evidence-based research center and requires the researchers to evaluate evidence related to a medical procedure's safety, health outcome, and cost data, and evidence *648 submitted by any interested party.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.100(2) — 3 cases
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” See RCW 70.14.100 (procedures and criteria for selection of health care technologies for HTCC review).”
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.100(1)(a). The HTCC obtains a report from an evidence-based research center and requires the researchers to evaluate evidence related to a medical procedure's safety, health outcome, and cost data, and evidence *648 submitted by any interested party.”
Michael E. Murray v. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 70.14.100(2). The HCA administrator selects technologies for rereview if new evidence has become available that could change the HTCC’s determination.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.100(4) — 2 cases
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” See RCW 70.14.100 (procedures and criteria for selection of health care technologies for HTCC review).”
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.100(1)(a). The HTCC obtains a report from an evidence-based research center and requires the researchers to evaluate evidence related to a medical procedure's safety, health outcome, and cost data, and evidence *648 submitted by any interested party.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.100(4)(a) — 1 case
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.100(1)(a). The HTCC obtains a report from an evidence-based research center and requires the researchers to evaluate evidence related to a medical procedure's safety, health outcome, and cost data, and evidence *648 submitted by any interested party.”
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.