Wash. Rev. Code » Title 70 · Chapter 70.14
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.110 (2026)

Health technology clinical committee determinations

✓ 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 committee shall determine, for each health technology selected for review under RCW 70.14.100: (a) The conditions, if any, under which the health technology will be included as a covered benefit in health care programs of participating agencies; and (b) if covered, the criteria which the participating agency administering the program must use to decide whether the technology is medically necessary, or proper and necessary treatment.
(2) In making a determination under subsection (1) of this section, the committee:
(a) Shall consider, in an open and transparent process, evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of the technology as set forth in the systematic assessment conducted under RCW 70.14.100(4);
(b) Shall provide an opportunity for public comment; and
(c) May establish ad hoc temporary advisory groups if specialized expertise is needed to review a particular health technology or group of health technologies, or to seek input from enrollees or clients of state purchased health care programs. Advisory group members are immune from civil liability for any official act performed in good faith as a member of the group. As a condition of appointment, each person shall agree to the terms and conditions imposed by the administrator regarding conflicts of interest.
(3) Determinations of the committee under subsection (1) of this section shall be consistent with decisions made under the federal medicare program and in expert treatment guidelines, including those from specialty physician organizations and patient advocacy organizations, unless the committee concludes, based on its review of the systematic assessment, that substantial evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of the technology supports a contrary determination.
[ 2006 c 307 s 4.]

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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “But after the HTCC determines under RCW 70.14.110’s criteria that a particular health technology will not be covered, that health technology is no longer “subject to a determination in the case of an individual patient as to whether it is medically necessary, or proper and…”
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 7× “RCW 70.14.110. The legislation generally provides that participating agencies comply with HTCC determinations.”
Michael E. Murray v. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “RCW 70.14.110(1). The HTCC is required to make its determinations “in an open and transparent process” considering “evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of the technology.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.110(1) — 3 cases
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “But after the HTCC determines under RCW 70.14.110’s criteria that a particular health technology will not be covered, that health technology is no longer “subject to a determination in the case of an individual patient as to whether it is medically necessary, or proper and…”
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.110. The legislation generally provides that participating agencies comply with HTCC determinations.”
Michael E. Murray v. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 70.14.110(1). The HTCC is required to make its determinations “in an open and transparent process” considering “evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of the technology.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.110(1)(b) — 1 case
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.110. The legislation generally provides that participating agencies comply with HTCC determinations.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.110(2)(a) — 3 cases
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “But after the HTCC determines under RCW 70.14.110’s criteria that a particular health technology will not be covered, that health technology is no longer “subject to a determination in the case of an individual patient as to whether it is medically necessary, or proper and…”
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.110. The legislation generally provides that participating agencies comply with HTCC determinations.”
Michael E. Murray v. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 70.14.110(1). The HTCC is required to make its determinations “in an open and transparent process” considering “evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of the technology.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.110(2)(b) — 2 cases
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.110. The legislation generally provides that participating agencies comply with HTCC determinations.”
Michael E. Murray v. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 70.14.110(1). The HTCC is required to make its determinations “in an open and transparent process” considering “evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of the technology.”
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.