House approves notice-of-previous-premium bill and adopts amendment expanding insurance commissioner's review power

House members on April 29 approved a measure requiring insurers to show the prior-year premium on renewal notices and, after a late amendment, expanded the state insurance commissioner's authority to review rate filings for excessiveness.

Representative Sam Wylie, the bill's sponsor, said the core change is simple: when a policyholder receives a renewal the insurer must display the immediately preceding premium alongside the new amount. "You would open it up carefully and reluctantly and look at that right hand bold print in the corner, and it would be your annual fee for the next year," Wylie said, arguing the side-by-side display helps consumers compare and consider shopping or contacting their agent.

Rep. Greg Glorioso offered and successfully secured an amendment that removed a statutory provision tying an'excessiveness'review only to markets designated as "noncompetitive." Glorioso told the House the change was meant to give the insurance commissioner explicit authority to determine whether any submitted rate is excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory: "What my amendment does is it creates a system where we no longer have to declare the market to be noncompetitive before we can review it for excessiveness," he said, and added that the amendment also creates an appeals path for insurers if the commissioner disagrees with a proprietary designation.

The amendment, and the broader bill as amended, prompted extended questioning from several lawmakers. Representative Willard, Representative Jordan and others asked how the changes would work in practice, including whether consumers would see side-by-side quotes and how arbitration of disputes would be localized. Representative Jordan asked specifically whether arbitrations would apply Louisiana law and be held within a policyholder's judicial district; sponsors said the Department of Insurance would adopt implementing rules and that arbitrators would generally be licensed to practice in Louisiana.

Representative Robby Carter, who urged limits on what insurers may include in rate-making, and Representative Jeffery "Glen" Furman, who spoke at length in opposition to the amendment, framed the policy choice differently. Furman, describing his general philosophy, said: "I consider myself a conservative Republican. I believe the free market, capitalism, competition is the answer to a thriving economy," and warned that strong regulatory rate controls have produced problems in other states.

The House adopted Glorioso's amendment and then passed HB 148 as amended. The House roll-call on final passage was 65 yeas and 36 nays, as announced by the clerk at the vote.

Why this matters: The amendment re-centers statutory authority in the Department of Insurance to examine whether rates are excessive without first declaring a market noncompetitive. Supporters said the change gives the commissioner clear, reviewable authority to protect consumers; critics warned it could chill market entry or recreate rate-control policies that have coincided with market withdrawals in other states.

What happens next: The bill passed the House and will move to the Senate for its consideration. The commissioner and the Department of Insurance will be responsible for drafting implementing rules if the bill becomes law.

Votes at a glance: The House adopted Representative Glorioso's amendment and passed HB 148 as amended (final passage announced at 65-36).