May 12, 2026 · Insurance Committee · 3,679 words · 7 speakers · 33 segments
We have a quorum present. We'll proceed as a full committee. Ladies and gentlemen, the committee minutes from our previous meeting are on the iPads. We'd like approval of those minutes without objection. Hearing no objection, the minutes are approved. At this time, I call forward House Bill 652 forward for its third hearing, opponent and interested party testimony. The chair recognizes Vice Chair Craig for a motion.
Chairman, I move to amend House Bill 652 with amendment number 2045-1.
Thank you, Vice Chair Craig. Would you please explain the amendment?
This amendment was brought by the bill's sponsor, who was unable to be here today, and so I'll describe it here briefly. This is a result of negotiations between the interested parties on this bill. It exempts rental insurance from the bill's extended notification period, prohibits disciplinary action by the Department of Insurance for the first 90 days after the effective date, and makes several modifications to the specific requirements for notices of non-renewal. The amendment has been distributed to the members and is available to review.
We'd like to approve the amendment without objection. Hearing no objection, the amendment is approved. Do you want to do that? Oh, that's, yeah, yeah. We did not receive any in-person opponent or interested party testimony. Is there anyone here present who would like to testify? Again, we're still on House Bill 652. All right, seeing none, we do have written testimony from Mike Farley on behalf of the Ohio Insurance Institute. So, members, if you would please review that. This will conclude the third hearing of House Bill 652. At this time, we're going to bring forward House Bill 24 for its fourth hearing. The chair recognizes Representative Sweeney for a motion.
Chair, I move to accept L1360013-4.
Representative Sweeney, would you please explain the sub-bill?
This sub-bill would remove the birthday rule period where individuals already enrolled in a Medicare supplemental policy may switch to a plan of the same coverage each year within 60 days of their birth date, and it allows premiums for enrollees under 65 years old up to 125% of premiums offered to individuals 65 and older.
Thank you. The substitute bill and comp doc were distributed to the members of the committee and are available for your review. We'd like to approve the sub-bill without objection. Hearing no objection, the sub-bill is accepted. This concludes the fourth hearing on House Bill 24. We now call forward House Bill 724 for its first hearing, sponsor testimony. With us today, we have Representatives Jody Salvo and Representative Andrea White. Welcome to committee. The floor is yours.
Good morning. Chairman Lampton, Vice Chair Craig, Ranking Member Hall, and members of the House Insurance Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide sponsor testimony today on House Bill 724, legislation to require health benefit plans to provide coverage for annual behavioral health well checks for children and adults in Ohio. My professional background includes years of work as a social worker and a prevention professional, working with individuals and families facing mental health challenges, substance use disorders, trauma, suicide risk, and barriers to care. Through that work, one thing became increasingly clear. We cannot continue to treat behavioral health as something separate from overall health. We recognize the value of annual physicals and preventative screenings because we understand that early identification and intervention save lives, improve outcomes, and represent an important investment in long-term health and well-being. Yet, when it comes to mental health and behavioral health, many individuals do not receive meaningful screening or support until they're already in crisis. This legislation requires health benefit plans to provide coverage for one annual behavioral health well check for both children and adults. These visits would include behavioral health screenings, review of risk and protective factors, education on healthy lifestyle changes, referrals to services when appropriate, and connection to additional supports. Importantly, these screenings could be conducted by licensed behavioral health professionals and medical providers already serving individuals in their community, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, psychologists, counselors, social workers, marriage and family therapists, and chemical dependency counselors. The goal of this legislation is simple, to normalize behavioral health care in the same way we normalize physical care. The bill recognizes that individuals do not need to be in crisis to benefit from behavioral health support. Early screenings and conversations can identify concerns before they escalate into emergencies. We know the need is significant. Across Ohio and throughout the country we continue to see growing concerns related to anxiety depression youth mental health substance use disorders loneliness and suicide risk When behavioral health concerns go unidentified and untreated the impacts extend far beyond the health care system. We see students having struggle student performance in school attendance, workforce participation and productivity, family stability, parenting stress, crisis system utilization, and long-term health care costs. Early identification and intervention not only improve individual outcomes, but it also strengthens families, workplace, schools, and communities across Ohio. Unfortunately, stigma and access barriers still prevent many from seeking help. Often individuals are more willing to attend a routine physical well check than to seek formal behavioral health treatment. This legislation creates a pathway for early engagement without requiring someone to reach a crisis point first. House Bill 724 also supports integrated care models. This bill allows behavioral health well checks to occur in behavioral health settings, primary care offices, pediatric settings, and integrated health care environments. This reflects the reality that health care is increasingly integrated and that mental health and physical health are inseparable. Importantly, many providers and health care systems across Ohio are already incorporating behavioral health screenings and integrated care practices into their work today. House Bill 724 helps formalize and support those efforts by creating clear coverage standards, including reducing barriers to care and recognizing behavioral health screening is an important part of overall wellness. Additionally, the bill prohibits prior authorization requirements for these annual well checks and limits cost-sharing requirements, helping remove financial administrative barriers that too often discourage preventative care. At its core, House Bill 724 is about prevention. It's about identifying concerns earlier. It's about reducing stigma. It's about supporting families before they reach crisis. And ultimately, it's about helping Ohioans receive support before a crisis becomes a tragedy. I'll now turn it over to my joint sponsor, Representative White, to conclude.
Well, thank you all for listening today. You know, we've made tremendous progress in Ohio when it comes to recognizing the importance of behavioral health, as well as advancing parity between mental health conditions and physical health care. Just as a reminder for everyone, mental health parity means the equal treatment of mental health conditions as we are treating physical health conditions. And House Bill 724 is an important step, important next step towards that greater parity. As my co-sponsor, joint sponsor has already mentioned, there's no secret that the impact of getting early treatment, early detection, early consult on mental health issues can greatly impact people's lives, including their physical health. So when we talk about mental health parity, the federal government first took baby steps towards this. Now we look back baby steps because we look at how far we've come and how far we need to go still. But the push for mental health and substance use parity first took root in 1996 with the passage of the Mental Health Parity Act. This required the employer-provided health plans not to impose lower annual or lifetime dollar limits on health care for mental health issues compared to physical. This act was later updated 18 years ago when Congress passed the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. MAPEA, I believe it's referred to, requiring insurance plans that cover mental health or substance use disorder benefits have to provide coverage comparable to the medical-surgical benefits. It prohibits more restrictive financial requirements like co-pays, deductibles, or treatment limits, like visit limits, prior authorization for behavioral health compared to physical. So we fast forward to today. when our own circle of life experiences, the education, employment, poverty, and addiction, and incarceration data all lead us to the fact, undisputed, that prevention, early identification, and treatment yield tremendous human and cost-saving benefits for our families and for our communities. So having this annual mental health wellness check plays an important part in that entire continuum of care, as well as in the resulting outcomes. And let's focus on outcomes and ROI because we all know we're looking for the business case to the things that we do along with the human case. In the coming weeks, you will hear more detail of the impact of this from some of the more than 25 interested parties who came together and helped shape this legislation as a result of the Mental Health Insurance Working Group that was established in January 2023 through an executive order. Led by the Ohio Department of Insurance, the group included employers, insurers, health care providers, and patient advocates working collaboratively to develop best practice solutions for providing mental health and addiction insurance benefits. As Representative Salvo reminded the committee earlier, we've seen the importance of the physical health checks and what that means when it comes to preventive care as well as the cost savings. A yearly mental health wellness check would do the same, and House Bill 724 is another step towards treating mental health with the same seriousness, consistency, and preventive focus as we do our physical health. Chair Lampton, Vice Chair Craig, Ranking Member Hall, and members of the committee, we are very thankful that you heard our bill today, and we look forward to any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Committee, do we have any questions? Of course. Ranking member Hall has a question or several perhaps.
Roger that. Thank you, Chair. Appreciate it. Through the Chair to Rep Salvo and Rep White, first off listen thanks for bringing this bill Certainly appreciate it I don think anybody in this room would disagree or raise a flag on the necessity of this bill So thank you for bringing it I just have two questions The first question is, two questions through the chair. So my first question is, do we have any data around the number of individuals that we would expect to be impacted if a piece of legislation like this would pass?
Go ahead.
I was just going to say, thank you for that question. I personally do not have any numbers here, but I think we could certainly find that information out for you. But I think also as we work in this space, we can really understand the impact of mental health crisis that we've seen, especially since 2020.
Roger that.
May I comment, Chair Lampton, Ranking Member LaHalle? I think one of the things, there's lots of different numbers, right? So if you look at the data on looking at Medicaid, some of us sat through the mental health caucus yesterday, and we heard some of the experts say it's five times less costly when proper treatment and identification of mental health disorders for Medicaid. So that's one example. There's a lot of cost savings data that's out there. But the other impact is some of our experts in the field, along with RepSalvo, can bring data about the importance and the number of people. But if you're talking about the specific number of people who don't have coverage, I don't know that we have that number. But we do have the number on the potential impact of early treatment and identification.
Yeah, we're on to that. Yeah, RepWhite, I appreciate that. Yeah, that's where I was going with it was the number of folks who have coverage but don't have this covered, you know, as far as the gap that we're trying to fill. My second question, and again, this question may be better saved for some of the experts that they're going to come to follow, so please feel free to defer. But you talked in your testimony about providing clear coverage standards and perhaps most importantly, limiting the cost-sharing requirements. Can you unpack at least the cost-sharing piece? Because, again, as we all know, coverage is not always coverage. And so, you know, so as we're thinking about how we address like an access or a barrier to care, just I'd love to hear more about the coverage piece.
And again, thank you for that question. I think really when we look at the cost sharing piece of this is we realize right now we still have a lot of barriers and stigma around mental health. So sometimes it's just any amount of dollar value might be an additional barrier. So when we look at physical health, we notice that, you know, we don't have cost sharing there. We have preventative visits that allow people, again, to do preventative care, which we know is going to save our dollars in the long run. So we want to really provide that parity with behavioral health, that there are not obstacles, there are not barriers that this bill will help normalize. Behavioral health checks and conversations around that. And I think if we're able to move the needle in that direction, we're going to see healthy Ohioans. We will not see people get as far into crisis because once we do not treat it earlier, we're going to do a lot more investment in the long run. And that impact in families and workplace and everything is real. So thank you.
Any follow-up? Sorry, I've got to – I have to say something. No.
Chair Lambton, Ranking Member Hall. I think one of the things to keep in mind is, you know, we're talking about the initial well check, that there would not be a copie with that, just like our physicals in many cases. But that doesn't mean that if you need treatment, you're going to have cost sharing. This only covers that initial wellness check. The other thing about this bill that I like is a lot of the integrative care models where, let's say you have a, you go to a hospital and there's multiple practices in that hospital. Right now, you're not allowed a bill if you see two different doctors for the wellness checks the same day. Well, if you have one with another, you know, let's say you're going to go see a different kind of doctor, and then you're seeing your general practitioner, you can go the same day. And a lot of times, it's very difficult for people to make the time to go to these well checks, as, you know, we have a men's health bill about telling your men in your life, you need to go get checked. You know, like people don't want to get checked. So this makes it easier.
Very good. He has one more, he says. Sorry, just a comment. So, listen, I want to thank you for bringing this bill because, you know, on the health care side, you know, as you mentioned earlier, there are primary care groups that are already integrating, like the PHQ-2, PHQ-9, basically, right, when they're doing patient intake. and the docs I've talked to have long said, hey, listen, that's a great tool, but this type of kind of assessment covers multiple domains other than just looking for basic depression screening. And so what they're seeing is that the PHQ-2 is really just revealing the tip of a much larger iceberg that I think your bill is trying to address, so thank you for that. And thank you, Chair. Appreciate it.
Any other questions from committee?
I think ranking member handled it for all of us.
Thank you for your testimony this morning. This will conclude the first hearing of House Bill 724. At this time, we call forward House Bill 757 for its first hearing, sponsored testimony. And this morning, our very own Representative Jack Daniels. Mr. Daniels, welcome to committee. The floor is yours.
Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the warm invite, and welcome back to Columbus. Chair Lampton, Vice Chair Craig, Ranking Member Hall, and fellow members of the House Insurance Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 757, the Enact the Rental Home Marketplace Guarantee Act. The short-term rental marketplace continues to grow, and it's important that there exist clear guidelines for all parties included. This is increasingly common for platforms offering guarantees that reimburse property owners for damage caused by renters There are no true statutes to define how these should be structured or regulated House Bill 757 provides clarity and consumer protections related to rental home marketplace guarantees offered by online rental platforms operating in Ohio. It establishes a clear framework for these guarantees so all consumers, providers, and regulators understand their individual responsibilities. It establishes financial backing requirements intended to protect consumers if a marketplace provider fails to honor its contractual obligations. First, the bill defines key terms, such as rental home marketplace platform, contract holder, provider, rental home marketplace guarantee, and reimbursement insurance policy, ensuring consistency in how these arraignments are treated under Ohio law. Second, the bill requires that any company offering these guarantees must be backed with a reimbursement insurance policy issued by an authorized or surplus lines insurer. This requirement ensures that if the provider fails to honor its contractual obligations under a guarantee, there is an insurance policy in place to cover the claim and protect the property owner. Third, the bill does not identify these protection providers as insurance companies, and as such, the guarantees provided in the bill are not insurance products and therefore are not required to comply with any provisions of the Ohio insurance law. Instead, they are contractual guarantees backed by insurance, ensuring the provider meets its commitments. Finally, the bill treats the sale of these guarantees as consumer transactions under Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act. This ensures accountability through regulatory enforcement. Due to them being consumer transactions, providers are exempt from being subject to extensive insurance regulation and licensing requirements. In short, this important piece of legislation intends to modernize Ohio's law in response to the evolving online rental marketplace. It creates regulatory clarity, and it improves transparency, reliable financial protections, insurance-backed guarantees, and consumer protection law applicability. Chair Lampton, members of the House Insurance Committee, I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration of House Bill 757, and I'd be happy to answer questions at this time.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Do we have any questions from committee?
Look at you. You did so well.
It's because I said all those big words.
Yeah, that's right. Or we're all just stunned and don't know what to say. Everybody's going to go into the dictionary. All right.
Thank you very much for your testimony. This will conclude the first hearing of House Bill 757. At this time, we would like to call forward House Bill 589 forward for its third hearing, Opponent and Interested Party Testimony. Testifying in person, we have Megan Richwine on behalf of the Ohio Association of Health Plans. Good morning and welcome to committee. The floor is yours.
Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome back. Chairman Lampton, Vice Chair Craig, Ranking Member Hall, and members of House Insurance Committee, my name is Megan Richwine and I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the Ohio Association of Health Plans. On behalf of OAHP, thank you for the opportunity to offer opponent testimony to House Bill 589. This bill proposes to amend sections of the revised code that pertain to material amendments that may be offered to a contract between a health plan and a hospital or other medical provider. The enactment of this code section was the result of a long and considerable debate several legislative sessions ago. And represents a compromise that was struck by the parties involved. Having said that, OAHP generally believes the current law continues to strike a balance of allowing a process for amendments to be proposed. Sorry, I keep losing my spot. To long-term contracts with hospitals and providers in order to be responsive to conditions in the healthcare marketplace, which are anything but static. The bill in its current form gives veto authority to hospitals and providers, which we believe would have a dampening effect on potential contract changes that may be in the best interest of all parties to the contract. This is a significant policy change and not a technical cleanup. Based on the recent introduction of the bill and testimony provided by the witnesses during the proponent hearing, OHP is aware of concerns that some of those parties now have with this section of law. While OAHP has significant objections to the bill in its current form, we are interested in learning in more detail about the concerns being raised. It is our understanding that the chair intends to convene interested party discussions, and we look forward to participating in that process. Overall, House Bill 589 would make it more difficult to implement cost management procedures and add additional administrative burdens and costs for both providers and payers. I will also add that we have been having our attorney look into this issue to see what the legal ramifications would be. With that, thank you for allowing me to testify, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Are there any questions from the committee? All right, seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony this morning. I would also bring out the written testimony. We have opponent testimony from Keith Lake, the regional director of the America's Health Insurance Plans. They are providing opponent testimony. We also have opponent testimony from Bianca Belale of the National Association of Dental Plans, who's also an opponent. Anyone else want to say anything before the insurance committee? Seeing none, we are adjourned.