Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Preventive Care Prostate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require private insurers to offer prostate screening for high‑risk men; committee hears testimony on coverage and prior notification law
Summary
House Bill 373 would require major medical insurers to offer annual prostate screening for men identified at high risk, including earlier screening for men with a family history; witnesses noted an existing notification law passed last year but said that did not mandate coverage
Representative Glaze presented House Bill 373 (LC461095) in the Senate Insurance and Labor Committee, asking insurers to offer annual prostate cancer screening for men judged to be high risk by clinicians. The sponsor said more than 11,000 Georgia men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year and argued that early detection improves survival.
The bill would require major medical insurers to provide an annual prostate screening—commonly a PSA blood test, which witnesses said averages about $33—to certain men younger than typical screening ages if a physician documents elevated risk, such as a family history. Representative Glaze said the proposal targets private insurance coverage and is intended to make screening available for men aged 40–49 with a family history and for men 50 and older per existing guidance.
Context and existing law: witnesses noted that Georgia enacted related legislation last year (House Bill 384), which requires insurers to notify male policyholders at age 40 and annually thereafter about PSA coverage options, but that notification law does not itself mandate coverage. Whitney Griggs of Georgians for a Healthy Future told the committee the Affordable Care Act does not require insurers to cover PSA screening, so state action is necessary to compel private carriers to offer the test for high‑risk men.
Questions and clarifications: committee members asked whether the bill duplicates existing coverage for many men; sponsors responded that the change would fill a gap for privately insured men under age 50 with a documented family history who may not currently be covered. Committee members also discussed expected cost impacts and how physicians would determine high risk; testimony said physician determination is part of the bill’s language.
Procedure and next steps: the committee conducted a hearing only and did not vote. Supporters urged the committee to codify coverage to remove barriers to low-cost screening for men at higher risk; staff and members asked for fiscal impacts and statutory cross-checks with last year’s notification law.
Ending: The hearing closed with supporters urging the committee to advance the measure to expand preventive screening access for high‑risk men through private insurance.
