Lawmakers on Thursday spent extended floor time debating House Bill 6 48, which would broaden insurance coverage for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices.

Supporters, including Representative Teresa, described CGMs as a “game changer” and said updated clinical guidance from the American Diabetes Association supports earlier use of the devices beyond insulin‑dependent patients. Proponents argued that earlier access could prevent costly complications and improve quality of life.

Opponents and committee members cautioned that clinical recommendations are not the same as insurance mandates and that the bill as written lacked defined clinical criteria. Representative Burrows and others said the state’s small insurance market could see premium impacts if coverage expanded without clear evidence and actuarial analysis; they urged further study and clearer eligibility definitions before a mandate is enacted.

After extended questioning and parliamentary inquiries, the majority committee report recommending interim study and committee consideration was put to a division/roll‑call vote. The clerk recorded the state of the vote and the committee report was adopted as recorded on the floor.

Why it matters: The bill touches on health‑insurance mandates and the balance between improving access to preventive medical technology and controlling insurance costs. If pursued later as a substantive mandate, requirements for clinical criteria and cost estimates would be decisive in shaping any coverage expansion.

What’s next: According to the floor record, the committee report was adopted; sponsors and opponents signaled further work in committee to specify clinical eligibility and to assess fiscal impacts before advancing a coverage mandate.