The legislative session is at halftime, and the insurance agenda is now limited. Most insurance issue bills are officially dead, including a bill that would have prohibited health plan provisions requiring a contracted provider to accept more than a certain number of patients; coverage for dialysis treatment regardless of whether the facility is contracted or not and without certain benefit restrictions; and a bill that would have allowed out-of-network assignment of benefits. However, Aetna is expecting that a bill requiring insurer and HMO annual reporting of premium cost composition, including administrative costs, may be resurrected. A bill that restricts dental insurers and HMOs from establishing fee schedules for non-covered services passed the Senate, with our amendment to accommodate most of the key concerns expressed by opponents of the bill. As the bill stands, dental insurance plans may impose fee schedules for covered services, regardless of whether the plan actually pays for the services rendered.
Ads by Google

KANSAS: An amended version of S.B. 389 related to dental services passed the Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee on February 11. The amended bill prohibits any contract between a health insurer that offers a health benefit plan and a dentist from containing a provision that requires the dentist to accept a fee schedule for services unless the service is a covered service. Committee amendments added to the definition of a “health benefit plan” the following: any subscription agreement issued by a non-profit dental service corporation; any policy of health insurance purchased by an individual; the state children’s health insurance plan; and the state medical assistance program under Medicaid. We will continue to update you as this bill progresses and hope to make favorable changes as the bill moves through the House.

MASSACHUSETTS: Governor Deval Patrick filed a 40-page bill that proposes giving the insurance commissioner the power to hold public hearings on rate adjustments and essentially cap health care price increases. Rate increases for individuals would be held to the rate of medical inflation; those sold to employers with 50 or fewer workers could not exceed one and a half times the level of medical inflation. The legislation would also impose a two-year moratorium on any new health benefit mandates. Legislative leaders praised the intent of the governor’s plan but declined to promise support. Strong opposition is expected from medical provider groups. The Governor simultaneously announced emergency regulations to take immediate effect that will require health insurers to submit proposed small business rate increases for review by the state 30 days before they take effect. Several other proposed provisions include a requirement that insurers offer at least one coverage plan with a limited network of health care providers costing at least 10 percent less than health plans with access to more physicians. The Massachusetts Association of Health plans is lobbying in support of a bill introduced by Senate Insurance Chair Richard Moore that would create a cheaper health insurance product for small employers by capping payments to providers at just 10 percent above Medicare rates. The Massachusetts Medical Society is against that proposal.

Feb:
hypothyroidism | General Surgeons India | North Sydney dental | sydney cbd