Committee hears broad support for bill to require insurance coverage of biomarker testing

State Senator Jeff Gordon and a range of patients, clinicians and advocacy groups told the Aging Committee on Feb. 20 that House Bill 6771, which would require private insurers to cover biomarker testing when medically appropriate, could speed diagnosis and expand access to personalized treatments.

The bill matters because biomarker tests can identify biological markers that guide treatment choices for cancers and, increasingly, for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease. “This is a common sense bill,” State Senator Jeff Gordon said, adding that such tests help clinicians make timely, individualized treatment decisions.

Witnesses described specific patient benefits and urged guardrails. Natalie Queen, a Waterbury resident who said her brother’s stomach cancer was diagnosed late, described a multi‑year treatment course and contrasted that with her own need for repeat testing because she carries the CDH1 gene: “Why test early? Because I choose to live,” she said. Linda Alderman, who testified about breast cancer care, said a biomarker spared her from chemotherapy that “could have permanently impaired my brain.”

Clinical and research testimony underlined the range of current applications. Christie Kovel of the Alzheimer’s Association said FDA‑approved biomarkers (for example, some brain imaging) already aid dementia diagnosis and that emerging blood tests are promising. Lindsey Kelly, associate director for the Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative at The Jackson Laboratory, summarized evidence from Maine that personalized treatment guided by biomarkers improved one‑year survival by 31 percent in a published cohort and described cases where serial biomarker results opened targeted therapies or trial options.

Several witnesses and groups asked the committee to limit coverage to tests supported by medical and scientific evidence and to include cost‑control language to avoid open‑ended mandates. Bridal Johnson of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network proposed an amendment to require coverage “for the purposes of diagnosis, treatment, appropriate management, or ongoing monitoring of a patient’s disease or condition when the test is supported by medical and scientific evidence.” Others asked for explicit post‑diagnosis access and flexibility for future innovations.

Agency and coalition witnesses noted prior steps on Medicaid. Michael Warner of the Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity and Opportunity said last year’s public act 24‑50 expanded biomarker access for some Medicaid beneficiaries and that HB 6771 would advance parity for commercially insured patients.

Supporters asked the committee to balance patient access with clear evidence standards and cost guardrails so testing is available where clinically appropriate while allowing plans to follow recognized sources of clinical guidance.

If enacted, the bill would change private‑plan coverage rules; testimony recommended specific language to tie coverage to listed clinical guidance and to preserve flexibility as evidence evolves.