Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prostate Cancer Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears proponents on HB 33 to require coverage of PSA screening for high‑risk men
Summary
Supporters told the House Insurance Committee that House Bill 33 would require insurers to cover evidence‑based prostate cancer screening, such as PSA testing, without cost sharing for men at elevated risk after a clinician discussion.
The House Insurance Committee held a proponent hearing on House Bill 33, which would require health insurers to cover evidence‑based prostate cancer screening (including PSA testing) without out‑of‑pocket costs for men at elevated risk after a provider discussion.
Angela Dawson, director of the Ohio Commission on Minority Health, told the committee HB 33 would remove financial barriers that prevent men from accessing screening and catching prostate cancer early. “This legislation will remove the financial barriers that too often prevent men from accessing care and catching the disease early,” Dawson said in proponent testimony.
Dr. John DeLancey, a urologist at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center speaking for the American Urological Association, urged advancement of the bill and said the PSA test is “the best cheapest test that we have” for screening despite limits in sensitivity and specificity. He said the bill would require insurers to cover screening for men aged 40 and older who are at high risk or those with a family history, and emphasized higher incidence and mortality among African American men.
Leo Almeida of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and other advocacy witnesses presented data and modeling cited in their written testimony showing that removing cost sharing could increase screening uptake, reduce advanced‑stage diagnoses and save lives and health‑care dollars over time. Almeida summarized the ACS CAN guidance that screening conversations should begin at age 50 for average risk men, 45 for higher risk, and 40 for men at the highest risk, consistent with the societies cited in testimony.
Multiple individual advocates described personal and family histories to illustrate the stakes for early detection. Laurie Palmer, a FORCE volunteer and hereditary‑cancer patient advocate, and Stephanie Mueller, a volunteer with ACS CAN whose father is a long‑term prostate‑cancer survivor, urged committee members to remove small financial barriers that they said deter screening. Palmer noted that a first‑degree family history can place relatives at substantially higher risk.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about which ages and risk groups would be covered and whether the bill ties coverage to specific guidelines; witnesses said coverage would follow accepted guideline criteria and that a clinician would document that the screening followed guideline‑based risk assessment.
The committee concluded the proponent testimony session for HB 33; no committee vote was recorded. Sponsors and supporters said they would be available for follow‑up and the committee noted written proponent statements on file from several professional societies.
Background: Witnesses cited rising rates of metastatic prostate cancer and racial disparities in incidence and mortality. Testimony referenced guidance from clinical societies and federal and state cancer statistics presented by witnesses; witnesses also referenced the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) in describing protections that apply to genetic testing and discrimination concerns.
Next steps: The bill remains in committee for further consideration and potential amendment.
