State "public option" health plans in Nevada and New York now pay brokers reduced commission — or none at all — for the same licensed work those brokers are paid for on every other plan on the same shelf. Colorado saw this coming and wrote parity into law. We are asking legislators, state and federal, to do the same.
Commission parity means a carrier that sells a state-sponsored plan must compensate licensed producers for it on terms comparable to its other plans in the same market. It does not set a rate. It does not add a state subsidy. It simply says a state program cannot be built on unpaid licensed labor.
When Colorado created its public option (the "Colorado Option," HB21-1232, 2021), the legislature anticipated exactly what has since happened elsewhere and closed the door in the statute itself:
"The commissions paid to insurance producers for the sale of the standardized plan must be comparable to the average commissions paid for the sale of other plans offered in the individual and small group markets." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-16-1305(4)
Colorado Option plans are sold statewide, brokers are paid for enrolling people in them, and the program coexists with a working distribution channel. Parity is not a theory. It is current law in a neighboring state with the same kind of program.
Licensed producers are the only professionals in the individual market whose job is to sit with a consumer, compare every plan on the shelf, and be accountable — under a state license — for the advice. They are paid by commission built into premiums, at no separate cost to the consumer.
When one category of plan pays nothing, the state has not saved consumers money. It has removed professional help from the plans the state most wants people to find.
In July 2026, CMS closed a producer complaint about Nevada's zero-commission public option plans, writing that it found no violation of the federal rules it examined — while acknowledging the obvious:
"We understand this removes an incentive for brokers to sell these plans." CMS/CCIIO written determination, July 29, 2026
The state insurance regulator says it cannot compel commissions. The federal regulator points back to the state. When every regulator says "not my desk," the desk left is the legislature's — state and federal. That is why this site exists.
Nevada's public option statute (SB 420 of 2021, now NRS Chapter 695K) requires carriers that participate in Medicaid to bid on "Battle Born State Plans" priced below a statutory reference premium. The chapter contains no producer, commission, or compensation language at all — and that silence is where the problem lives.
Enact commission parity for the 2027 session, modeled on Colorado: a plan offered on the exchange must compensate a licensed producer on terms comparable to the carrier's other plans of the same metal level. One sentence in NRS Chapter 695K. No state money required.
New York went further than Nevada — it prohibited commissions outright, in writing.
"Starting January 1, 2026, EP issuers must not pay commissions to Producers for new EP enrollment or the renewal of existing EP enrollments; and may not pay remuneration based on the volume of enrollment or the number of NYSOH applications submitted." NY State of Health, 2026 Essential Plan Invitation (p. 36), publicly posted May 5, 2025
Every Essential Plan issuer signed a model contract carrying the same term. In April 2026, four New York producers and Health Agents for America (HAFA) challenged the ban in New York state court (Index No. 155348/2026, Supreme Court, New York County). That litigation is pending as of this writing — no court has ruled on the merits. Whatever the outcome, it will take years. A one-sentence parity statute would have made the case unnecessary.
New York brokers: your experience under the Essential Plan ban is exactly the evidence your legislators need to hear, in your own words, from your own district.
Public option statutes mandate premiums below a reference price. Premiums have three places to give: medical costs, margin, and administration. Broker commission sits in the administrative line — the only line with no statutory protection. The public record now shows that is exactly where the squeeze landed.
Nevada's own regulator requires carriers to show this math. The Nevada Division of Insurance's plan year 2027 rate filing guidance orders every carrier to:
"Provide detail, in the Actuarial Memorandum, on commission levels contributing to the plan-level administrative expense factor, including how the commission component was derived. Include information on commission structures and any variation by plan." Nevada Division of Insurance, PY2027 rate filing guidance
So the commission-by-plan variation is documented, carrier by carrier, in filings sitting at the Division today. Nevada law, like every state's, requires that rates not be inadequate. When a plan can meet its mandated price only by zeroing out its distribution, that is a fact regulators, actuaries, and legislators should be examining in the open — and it is a question brokers are entitled to ask at every rate hearing.
Cutting commission does not show up as a benefit cut or a premium line, so it looks free. It is not. It shows up as: no one to call at renewal when the network changes; no one accountable for a subsidy calculation; enrollment that misses projection by two-thirds; and a distribution system where the professionals steer — rationally, and exactly as compensation design predicts — toward every plan except the one the state built. If a state believes in its public option, paying nothing to enroll people in it is a strange way to show it.
You do not need permission, a trade association, or this site to talk to your own elected officials. A two-minute call or a short letter from a licensed constituent, describing your own book and your own clients in your own words, outweighs any form letter.
Antitrust. Producers who compete with one another should not discuss, compare, agree on, or coordinate the commission rates or fees any of them will accept. Describe your own experience and what you want the law to require. Joint advocacy to legislators is protected; agreements among competitors about pricing or about refusing business are not — regardless of how justified the grievance is.
Client privacy. Legislative correspondence and public comment become public record. Never include a client's name, diagnosis, medication, claim details, or any identifying health information. Describe impacts in general terms.
These six legislators' offices have already received the federal correspondence on this issue, so the subject will not be new to their staff. If your own senator or assemblymember is not on this list, contact them first — find your senator or assemblymember — then copy the leadership offices below. The 2027 Regular Session convenes February 1, 2027; bill drafts are being decided now.
| Legislator | Office | Phone | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sen. Nicole CannizzaroSenate Majority Leader — District 6 (Clark) | Nevada Senate | (775) 684-1475 | Nicole.Cannizzaro@sen.state.nv.us |
| Sen. Robin TitusSenate Minority Leader — District 17 | Nevada Senate | (775) 684-1470 | Robin.Titus@sen.state.nv.us |
| Sen. Fabian DoñateDistrict 10 (Clark) — health policy lead | Nevada Senate | (775) 684-1427 | Fabian.Donate@sen.state.nv.us |
| Sen. Marilyn Dondero LoopPresident pro Tempore — District 8 (Clark) | Nevada Senate | (775) 684-1445 | Marilyn.DonderoLoop@sen.state.nv.us |
| Speaker Steve YeagerSpeaker of the Assembly — District 9 (Clark) | Nevada Assembly | (775) 684-8549 | Steve.Yeager@asm.state.nv.us |
| Asm. Daniele Monroe-MorenoDistrict 1 (Clark) | Nevada Assembly | (775) 684-8509 | Daniele.MonroeMoreno@asm.state.nv.us |
CMS's July 2026 determination means the federal rules, as CMS reads them, permit zero-commission exchange plans nationwide. That is a federal policy question, and these offices are already on the correspondence. Ask them to press HHS/CMS and Treasury on producer compensation standards for state innovation waiver programs, and to support federal parity language. Congressional offices take input by phone and through their own web contact forms (linked below).
| Member | Office | Phone | Contact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto | 309 Hart Senate Office Building | (202) 224-3542 | cortezmasto.senate.gov |
| Sen. Jacky Rosen | 713 Hart Senate Office Building | (202) 224-6244 | rosen.senate.gov |
| Rep. Dina TitusNV-01 | 2370 Rayburn House Office Building | (202) 225-5965 | titus.house.gov |
| Rep. Mark AmodeiNV-02 | 104 Cannon House Office Building | (202) 225-6155 | amodei.house.gov |
| Rep. Susie LeeNV-03 | 365 Cannon House Office Building | (202) 225-3252 | susielee.house.gov |
| Rep. Steven HorsfordNV-04 | 406 Cannon House Office Building | (202) 225-9894 | horsford.house.gov |
New York: find your state senator or Assembly member and tell them what the Essential Plan commission ban has done to your practice and your clients. Colorado: your parity statute is the model — tell your legislators it works, and watch for any attempt to weaken it. Find them at leg.colorado.gov.
Bill numbers, hearing dates, comment deadlines, and what to do when each one lands — for Nevada, New York, and any state that follows. That's all this list is for.
Confidentiality: Your information is used only to send you updates about commission parity efforts. It will not be published, sold, shared with carriers, or disclosed to anyone else. Unsubscribe any time by replying to any update. Anything you share about your practice stays confidential — and please do not include client names or any client health information in the form.