Bill to require insurance coverage for hearing aids for adults draws broad support; fiscal note contested

Representative Paul Tuss introduced House Bill 607 to require insurance coverage for hearing loss and hearing aids for people of all ages by removing the existing age limit (coverage for children 18 and younger). He described hearing loss prevalence and links to cognitive decline, depression and employment impacts and urged the committee to act.

Proponents included private citizens with lived experience, AARP Montana and Big Sky 55+, representatives of the Montana School for the Deaf and Blind, clinicians from Billings Clinic and audiology/speech associations, and the Montana School for the Deaf and Blind superintendent. Testimony emphasized high device cost (witnesses cited ranges from about $900 to $3,000 per device depending on model and service), the potential to slow cognitive decline (citing a 2023 Johns Hopkins study finding association of hearing‑aid use with lower dementia prevalence), and that insurers and purchasing power can lower device costs. Witnesses encouraged reasonable benefit design (limits, replacement period) and noted the fiscal note received by the sponsor may overestimate per‑device costs.

Informational testimony came from the Administrator of Health Care and Benefits Division who explained impacts on the state employee plan; proponents and sponsor debated the fiscal note figures and replacement period. The sponsor said the fiscal note’s per‑device price of $5,000 (per hearing aid) overstated market prices and suggested lower estimates and longer replacement cycles (6–7 years) could reduce program cost. Committee members asked whether training and follow‑up services were covered; witnesses said fitting and audiologist/audiology follow‑up are part of recommended care and should be considered in benefit design.

Nut graf: HB 607 would expand insurance coverage for hearing aids to adults; health, aging and disability advocates endorsed the proposal for its potential to improve quality of life and possibly reduce cognitive decline risk, while fiscal details and benefit design (device cost, replacement period, fitting/training) were debated.

At the end of the hearing sponsors and supporters asked the committee to consider measures to make the benefit affordable (price limits, multi‑year replacement cycles) and to examine whether insurer negotiation would reduce costs. No committee vote occurred during the hearing; the bill was later placed on the committee’s executive agenda and advanced in executive action.