Proponents tell committee BEST Act would eliminate cost‑sharing for supplemental and diagnostic breast imaging, citing lives saved and minimal premium impact

Dozens of proponents — patients, clinicians, advocacy groups and hospitals — gave proponent testimony to the House Insurance Committee in support of House Bill 271, the Breast Examination and Screening Transformation (BEST) Act, which would require coverage and prohibit patient cost sharing for supplemental screening and diagnostic breast imaging when medically necessary.

Michelle Young of the Pink Eraser Project, a patient who described a late diagnosis after routine mammograms missed her cancer due to dense breast tissue, urged the committee to remove cost barriers to MRIs and other supplemental imaging. “If we had allowed MRIs… this 1 showed a suspected mass,” Young said of her experience; she gave a cost estimate for treating advanced disease and said contrast‑enhanced mammography and MRI can be low‑cost lifesaving options.

Dr. Natasha Monga, a board‑certified radiologist and board member of the Ohio Radiological Society, said the society “strongly supports House Bill 271,” describing diagnostic imaging as the necessary next step after abnormal screening and arguing that cost sharing causes patients to delay or forgo follow‑up care. She cited a 2021 Radiology study that found “more than 1 in 5 women delayed follow‑up breast imaging due to high out of pocket costs.” Dr. Monga said the bill would require private payers and Medicaid to cover supplemental screening and diagnostic breast exams, prohibit cost sharing, apply accreditation and American College of Radiology guidance, and replace the Medicare benchmark for provider payment parity.

Tiffany Mattingly of the Health Collaborative, Danny Hurley and other representatives of Susan G. Komen, Julie McMahon (Susan G. Komen), Shanice Pearson (advocate and survivor), Carol Beck (survivor), and others offered testimony emphasizing early detection, clinical necessity, and financial impacts on families and providers. Shanice Pearson described discovering stage‑1 cancer on MRI while her screening mammogram was normal and said access to MRI saved her life. Julie McMahon and others described the personal and financial burdens of repeated diagnostic testing and cited the need to tailor supplemental imaging to high‑risk patients.

Advocates also addressed cost. Danny Hurley (Susan G. Komen) told the committee that data from other states that enacted similar laws show little to no impact on premiums, citing state estimates of between 0.2¢ to 0.5¢ per member per month (annualized “a nickel”). He said some states have projected savings from earlier detection.

Proponents noted past state-level action and federal proposals: Dr. Monga referenced previous Ohio legislation (House Bill 371, 2022) that required coverage for supplemental screening but did not eliminate patient cost sharing; she and others referenced the bipartisan federal Find It Early Act as a comparable national proposal. Several witnesses said roughly 30 states have enacted legislation addressing similar issues.

Committee members asked questions about overdiagnosis, premium effects, and eligibility for supplemental screening. Representative King raised questions about international guideline changes and overdiagnosis concerns; proponents answered that screening should be personalized and that dense breasts present an under‑diagnosis risk. Leader Jerrells and others pressed on premium impacts and unfunded‑mandate concerns; witnesses gave the per‑member‑per‑month figures and argued that earlier detection lowers long‑term costs.

The committee recorded no vote on House Bill 271 in the provided transcript; the session concluded after multiple proponent testimonies and written submissions from additional organizations were noted.