Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medigap Birthday Rule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs ‘birthday rule’ to let Medigap enrollees switch insurers annually without underwriting
Summary
The committee unanimously approved House Bill 1226 to permit people on Medicare supplements (Medigap) age 65 and older to change insurers once per year within 60 days of their birthday without medical underwriting, aligning Indiana with several other states and aiming to reduce long‑term premiums for seniors.
Get email alerts on the Medigap Birthday Rule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Senate Insurance Committee voted unanimously to advance House Bill 1226, which would allow Indiana residents age 65 and older who are enrolled in a standardized Medicare supplement policy (Medigap) to change insurers once per year within 60 days of their birthday without undergoing medical underwriting, provided they keep the same lettered plan type.
Representative Wendy Danchessor, sponsor of the bill, said approximately 52 percent of people 65 and older are in Medicare Advantage plans, but many seniors stay on original Medicare with a Medigap policy and face underwriting barriers when they want to change carriers later in life. The bill would adopt a “birthday rule” similar to laws in nine other states.
Supporters including AARP Indiana, the Indiana Retired Teachers Association and the Indiana Association of Area Agencies on Aging testified in favor. Sponsor testimony and witnesses emphasized that the rule helps seniors on fixed incomes shop for better pricing after the initial guaranteed‑issue window around age 65. Representative Mark Davis, an independent broker who helped craft the idea, said his Kentucky clients saved substantial sums after a similar law took effect there.
Committee members asked detailed questions about underwriting windows, how Part A and Part B enrollment interacts with supplements when people are still employed, and whether the change would raise premiums for remaining policyholders. The sponsor and witnesses said the state’s loss‑ratio and rate‑review requirements constrain rate increases and that the market incentives make it difficult for carriers to raise rates unchecked.
Senator Gaskell and others sought a second‑reading amendment to address possible cost‑shifting and “teaser” pricing by some carriers; supporters and the sponsor agreed to continued conversations. The committee reported the bill to the floor unanimously.
