Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill to expand insurance access to continuous glucose monitors
Summary
The Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs Committee voted to concur on House Bill 947, which would require insurers to cover continuous glucose monitors when a clinician deems them medically necessary instead of waiting until a patient is on insulin; supporters said the devices improve care and can reduce long-term costs.
Representative Fiona Nave, the House sponsor, told the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs Committee that House Bill 947 would require insurers to approve continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) when a treating clinician determines they are medically necessary, rather than linking coverage to Medicare-style insulin thresholds. "A continuous glucose monitoring device is an alternative to finger sticks to help manage type 1 or type 2 diabetes," Nave said, describing CGMs as the "gold standard" for diabetes care.
Supporters said the devices provide continuous data that helps patients and clinicians maintain blood sugar "time in range," prevent complications and, over time, save money by avoiding more intensive drug therapies. JJ Carmody of Billings Clinic and Logan Health testified the bill would be a cost saver and urged the committee to support it. Jessie Fernandez, section supervisor at the Department of Public Health and Human Services, explained that CGMs increase the time patients spend in therapeutic glucose ranges and reduce risks of vascular and kidney disease and retinopathy.
Drew Chuck, government relations director for Blue Cross Blue Shield, served as an informational witness on insurance issues. Chuck described the state reimbursement review process for mandated benefits and said insurance companies had adjusted medical policies in recent years; he explained that a narrow bill and updated policies contributed to a negligible fiscal impact for the state this session. "We cover everything that's currently required in the bill, which is why we don't have any additional defrail costs," Chuck said to the committee.
Committee members questioned witnesses about prior fiscal notes and whether broader coverage would increase costs; sponsors and witnesses pointed to changed medical-policy practices and internal analyses showing long-run savings in some scenarios. Representative Nave offered a cost comparison she had prepared, noting an illustrative annual cost of about $1,800 for monitoring versus about $5,500 for some insulin regimens, and urged the committee that earlier monitoring could spare patients more invasive treatments.
After discussion the committee moved to concur on HB 947; the motion passed by voice vote and the bill was referred to the Senate floor.
