Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Missouri committee hears competing arguments on bill to require insurers to reimburse licensed nonphysician providers equally
Loading...
Summary
Supporters of House Bill 1894 say it implements federal nondiscrimination law to expand patient choice and help rural access; insurers and trade groups warn it could undermine network negotiation and conflict with federal network rules.
The Missouri House Committee on Insurance heard more than two hours of testimony on House Bill 1894, a sponsor‑backed proposal to codify federal nondiscrimination language so licensed nonphysician providers can be reimbursed at parity for services within their scope of practice.
Representative Hausman, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure is about "patient choice and fairness in health care," and argued that if a provider is licensed and practicing within their scope, patients should be able to use their insurance to see that provider. She said the bill mirrors federal law and "does not change the scope of practice" or require insurers to cover new services.
Supporters who testified included Dr. Paul Dupuy, vice president of the Missouri Chiropractic Physician Association, who said the measure would codify the Public Health Service Act §2706 into Missouri law and would give the Department of Insurance authority to enforce nondiscrimination protections; he emphasized rural access and keeping small practices viable. Kaina Eiman, representing the Missouri Nurses Association and the Missouri Occupational Therapists Association, and Adam Burger of the Missouri Podiatric Medical Association also testified in favor.
Industry witnesses pushed back. Shannon Cooper, speaking for America's Health Insurance Plans, and Hampton Williams of the Missouri Insurance Coalition raised concerns about network adequacy and the Legislature removing insurers' ability to negotiate selective network participation. Williams pointedly noted a portion of the federal rule that says a group health plan is not required to contract with every provider willing to participate, and he argued the bill’s equal‑rate language could undercut negotiated networks and incentives for higher performing providers.
Committee members pressed for specifics about rulemaking (chapter 536) and how parity would be implemented. Sponsor and supporters said billing and reimbursement would rely on existing procedural codes; opponents warned the bill as drafted omits federal language that preserves plan contracting flexibility and could create conflicts requiring statutory or regulatory fixes.
The committee closed the public hearing after supporters and opponents testified; no committee vote on HB 1894 was recorded in the transcript during this meeting. Further refinement was suggested by members who requested technical clarifications.
