Arizona Legislators Consider Harmful Healthcare Policies: What Physicians Need to Know

February 20, 2026

Arizona Medical Association

Vitals From the State Capitol: These Physician-opposed Bills Are on the Move

Week 6 of Arizona's Legislative Session   February 20, 2026


⚠ ACTION NEEDED

Upcoming Monday | HB2211: No Surprises Act Arbitration Bill

A bill to be heard by the House Appropriations Committee on Monday, House Bill 2211, would give health insurers an advantage in No Surprises Act arbitration by introducing two new caps on what a health care provider may offer:



  • 300% of the approved Medicare reimbursement rate, or
  • 300% of the qualified payment amount


A violation of the statute would be considered unprofessional conduct and could threaten a physician's license. The health care community is united in opposition, and we need your help voicing it to the committee.

Action Needed before Monday

Sign in to the State Capitol's Request-to-Speak system and send the Appropriations Committee our pre-drafted letter to share your opposition.

Sign In on RTS Email the Appropriations Committee

⚠ ACTION NEEDED

HB2444: Pharmacist "Test and Treat" Bill

The pharmacist-led "Test and Treat" bill, House Bill 2444, limped out of the House Health & Human Services Committee this week with a 7-5 vote. ArMA testified before the committee on the dangers this legislation presents, and we were joined in opposition by pharmacists who also view the bill as unsafe and overly burdensome.



A stakeholder meeting was held Wednesday, but no agreement was reached. ArMA's Advocacy Team will continue to fight against this mis-guided bill, but we need your help. Let the House of Representatives know physicians stand firmly against HB2444 by sending them a pre-drafted letter today.

Action Needed

Contact the full House of Representatives and urge them to oppose HB2444.

Sign In on RTS Tell Your Representatives to Vote No

Monitoring

HB2251: Licensed Midwives Bill Advances with Amendment

The licensed midwives bill, House Bill 2251, advanced this week with an amendment granting prescriptive authority for the following:


  • Antibiotics for Group B Strep
  • Antihemorrhagics strictly for the prevention of hemorrhage
  • Vitamin K prophylaxis
  • IV fluids for routine administration
  • Prophylactic eye medication for newborns
  • Local anesthetics



Work remains to be done on the bill but negotiations are continuing in good faith toward a solution that protects patients. ArMA's Advocacy Team continues to be a part of these discussions and closely monitor the legislation..

Monitoring

HB2250: Prior Authorization Reform

House Bill 2250, which originally included sweeping prior authorization reforms, passed committee this week after being scaled back to two key timeline changes:


  • Emergency requests: Decision required within 72 hours
  • Non-emergency requests: Decision required within seven days



The amendment included problematic language — pushed by the insurance industry — that would require all prior authorizations to be submitted electronically. While electronic submission may make sense in many situations, any such requirement must include a delayed effective date for implementation, as well as exceptions for access issues such as broadband outages or system failures like United's payment portal crash in 2024.

The bill's sponsor has committed to addressing ArMA's concerns before the bill advances further.

Monitoring

SB1494: Unlawful Patient Brokering — ArMA Testifies in Opposition

ArMA testified in opposition to Senate Bill 1494 Thursday. The bill, introduced as a strike-everything amendment, attempts to expand the unlawful patient brokering statute to make it a felony for a provider to "steer, advise, recommend, or encourage" a patient regarding their health insurance coverage.



While ArMA shares the goal of addressing fraud and abusive patient referral schemes, the bill's language is so broad and vague that it would ensnare routine doctor-patient interactions. The bill passed committee along partisan lines, though the sponsor and committee members committed to addressing the significant problems with the legislation.

ADHS Issues Standing Orders for Flu, COVID-19 Vaccine Access

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
Statewide orders keep pharmacists and physicians authorized to vaccinate Arizonans amid uncertainty over the next ACIP meeting. Statewide Orders Cover the 2026-27 Flu & COVID Season The Arizona Department of Health Services has issued statewide standing orders supporting access to the 2026-27 influenza and COVID-19 vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Arizonans seeking a flu or COVID-19 vaccine should contact their physician or pharmacy to confirm availability. Why the Orders Were Issued Arizona pharmacists may administer vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for international travel, or vaccines authorized under a prescription, including a physician-issued public health standing order. With the timing of the next ACIP meeting uncertain, ADHS worked with the Arizona Board of Pharmacy to issue statewide standing orders for the flu and COVID-19 vaccines, which function as a prescription allowing pharmacists and physicians across Arizona to administer them to anyone who wants one. ADHS Medical Advisor Weighs In "Vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to protect our communities. The Influenza and COVID-19 vaccines have been proven safe and effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. Vaccines help us limit the spread of disease, reduce pressure on our healthcare system and reduce costs," said Dr. Richard Carmona, ADHS public health medical advisor and the 17th U.S. Surgeon General. "We have issued these standing orders to ensure safe and timely access to the vaccines in alignment with scientific and evidence-based guidance." What Arizonans Should Know The standing orders do not require every pharmacy to offer vaccinations, and they do not guarantee insurance coverage for administration. Coverage and out-of-pocket costs vary by plan, so Arizonans should check with their insurance provider before scheduling an appointment. 

Arizona Asks Supreme Court to Halt Prison Health Care Takeover

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
State attorneys seek an emergency stay after lower courts reject bids to delay receivership of the prison health care system. State Makes a Last-Ditch Appeal Attorneys for the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry asked the U.S. Supreme Court this week to delay a court-ordered receivership of the state's prison health care system. The request comes after both a federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause the takeover. In the recent application, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, a representative of the department, argued that the state deserves more time to make its case before surrendering control of its operations, including oversight of its employees and health care budget. Roots of the Case The dispute began in 2012 when inmates sued the department, alleging the prison system's inadequate medical, mental health, and dental care amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The case went through years of litigation and a failed settlement agreement. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that the health care system was "grossly inadequate." The court ordered the prison healthcare system to comply with more than 150 "quality indicators," but according to court-appointed monitors, the department failed to comply with 131 of the measures. In light of this finding, Silver named Annette Chambers-Smith, former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, to take over as receiver effective Oct. 19. Arguments on Both Sides Clement argues receivership should be the last resort and that Silver moved to it too quickly. He asserts that the department has made measurable progress, including growing its health care staffing by more than 50%, expanding substance-use treatment access, and adopting a new care model. Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, which represents the roughly 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona prisons, called the department's request a "Hail Mary" and said Silver had given the department years of opportunities to comply before ordering receivership. What Happens Next The Supreme Court has not yet set a deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the stay request. Separately, the 9th Circuit is now reviewing the merits of the receivership order itself. The department filed its opening brief on Sept. 15, and the plaintiffs' response is due Oct. 15. Information in this article was sourced from the Arizona Mirror .