Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance Mandates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee approves 60-day actuarial review for proposed health-plan mandates
Summary
The Oklahoma Senate Business and Insurance Committee passed Senate Bill 10-96 requiring a 60-day actuarial analysis of proposed health-insurance mandates intended to estimate costs to small employers and plans. The committee approved an amendment and the bill passed 10-1.
Senate Business and Insurance Committee members voted to approve Senate Bill 10-96, a bill that would require short-form actuarial studies of proposed health-plan mandates before those measures proceed, and sent the measure to the full Senate after a 10-1 committee vote.
The bill, introduced and explained by Senator Fricks, asks the Legislative Services Office (LSB) to request actuarial analyses that estimate how proposed mandates would affect health-insurance premiums for small-group plans and other plans not preempted by federal law. The committee adopted an amendment on the floor of the committee and then approved the bill on final passage.
Supporters told the committee the measure is modeled on an existing state actuarial review practice used for pension changes (referred to in committee as the OPLA/OPA process) and is intended to give legislators data about likely premium impacts before they approve new mandated benefits. Senator Reinhart and others said the intent is to provide commissioners and lawmakers information to better understand costs that fall primarily on small employers and consumers. Senator Brooks and others asked how the studies would be produced and paid for; the bill’s author said the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner would contract actuarial work as needed and that the commission would absorb costs within its existing budget.
Committee members also debated operational limits: Senator Mann asked whether a cap on the number of actuarial reviews each year would mean only a subset of health-related bills gets a study. The author acknowledged the committee’s practical limits and said one actuarial analysis might cover several similar bills. The author also emphasized that the bill does not prohibit the Legislature from acting on any measure; it seeks only a 60-day window for the actuarial analysis before moving forward.
The committee recorded a 10-1 vote in favor of SB 10-96. Proponents said the measure provides a quick, 60-day fiscal-impact snapshot and does not force lawmakers to wait an additional year to act. Opponents warned that the requirement could be used to delay coverage expansions for patients who would benefit from added services.
The bill’s next step is consideration by the full Senate.
