House rejects rushed move to advance bill banning co‑payments for children’s mental‑health care
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers debated a motion to suspend rules and recall House File 32, which would prohibit insurance co‑payments for children’s mental‑health services; the urgency motion failed on a 76‑to‑58 roll call after proponents argued the change would remove financial barriers for families and opponents said the measure lacked prior committee hearings and full fiscal review.
The Minnesota House on Monday declined to suspend the rules to rush House File 32 — a bill sponsors said would prohibit health insurers from requiring co‑payments for children’s mental‑health services — after a floor debate that split the chamber on procedure and policy.
Representative Smith, the bill’s chief author on the floor, framed the legislation as a way to ensure families do not delay or forgo treatment because of out‑of‑pocket co‑payments. “House File 32 prohibits health insurance providers from requiring co payments for children's mental health services,” Smith said, urging colleagues to “vote yes on house file 32.”
Supporters argued the change removes a direct financial barrier. Smith said a typical course of weekly therapy plus a monthly psychiatric follow up could leave a family with roughly $3,500 in co‑payment costs in a year, and told colleagues those costs can force families into medical debt. Representative Curran, also backing the motion, said the bill “eases families from the mandates that they have from their insurance companies to access the health care that their children need.”
Opponents concentrated on process and fiscal concerns. Representative Niska and Representative O’Driscoll said the bill had not been vetted in Commerce or Health committee this session and urged that a mandate review or committee hearing was the appropriate next step. O’Driscoll warned of unintended premium impacts tied to insurance mandates and noted the state’s reinsurance discussions as a separate, unresolved fiscal pressure on premiums.
Representative Nadeau asked the sponsor for a cost estimate; Smith pointed colleagues to an evaluation available at the clerk’s desk and said the bill excludes public programs (for example, MA), noting some premium‑paid costs are difficult to calculate precisely. Nadeau said she would review the analysis but expressed a wish for more committee discussion on the bill’s scope and market effects.
The clerk called a roll. There being 76 ayes and 58 nays, the motion to suspend the rules and take up the bill immediately was not adopted, and House File 32 did not advance that day.
Next steps: Because the urgency motion failed, the bill will remain on its current schedule and may be taken up through regular committee and calendar processes.
