Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prosthetics Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears testimony on extending prosthetic coverage to state health plan
Summary
SB528 would add prosthetic devices, including secondary devices, to the state health benefit plan effective Jan. 1, 2027; patient testimony underscored gaps and a Department of Community Health fiscal figure of $1.4 million was cited during discussion.
The Senate Insurance and Labor Committee held a hearing on SB528 (LC 521037), a bill to extend prosthetic-device coverage into the state health benefit plan so state employees, public school teachers and certain Board of Regents employees would have the same coverage recently required of commercial plans.
Sponsor remarks said the bill’s purpose is to ensure state employees have access to prosthetics and secondary devices that allow full participation in daily life. The sponsor described the proposal as "rolling those same rights into the state health care benefit plan," and read the bill’s effective date as Jan. 1, 2027.
Rachel Oyer, testifying as a representative of So Everybody Can Move Here in Georgia and co-owner of Alliance Prosthetics and Orthotics, told the committee about a state employee who lost a leg below the knee after a crash and could not obtain a running prosthesis under her state coverage. Oyer said that after community fundraising and outside help the patient obtained a running prosthesis and is now registered for the Boston Marathon. "Hannah then was, removed from the car. Resulting the accident, she lost her leg below the knee," Oyer said, describing the practical, daily impact and urging favorable consideration.
The sponsor and Oyer discussed fiscal estimates and implementation. Oyer said she worked with the Department of Community Health, which reconciled an earlier fiscal note to $1,400,000 (rather than a higher figure discussed earlier). Committee members asked whether technical college system employees and certain other groups are covered; the sponsor said state employees are included and he welcomed further work with staff to refine which state-contracted plans are implicated.
Members emphasized implementation details, including whether injections or other procedures should be added to the state plan. The chair and sponsor agreed to continue working with the department and stakeholders before the committee’s upcoming business meeting; the sponsor asked that the committee keep the bill active for a Thursday vote.
The hearing combined personal testimony and technical questions about plan boundaries, fiscal impacts and how the state plan interacts with other benefit structures.
