House committee rejects bid to remove reporting requirements for health-care-sharing plans

Representative Harvey offered an amendment to H.585 to remove section 10, which would create reporting requirements for health-care-sharing plans and make that information available to the Department of Financial Regulation, saying the section raises "freedom of choice" and "First Amendment" concerns.

The chair of the House Healthcare Committee replied that the provision does not erect a regulatory regime but asks plans to report data so consumers can compare membership counts and coverage terms; the chair described the proposal as a consumer-protection measure informed by testimony from the Department of Financial Regulation, the Healthcare Advocates Office and representatives of sharing plans.

Committee member Leslie said she traced the language to Colorado, where the state's financial regulator has published four years of reports, and urged the committee to review that data. Leslie also noted the plans' reported exclusions, citing "type one and type two diabetes, hypertension" and other common conditions as examples of items plans may treat as pre-existing and therefore ineligible for sharing.

Several members proposed a study group as an alternative to immediate enactment. Zach said fact-finding would clarify what data should be collected and pointed to ongoing litigation in Colorado, where a request for a preliminary injunction was denied and an appeal has been filed with the 10th Circuit, as discussed by legislative-council staff.

Brian, who said he had previously been skeptical, described how learning of abuses and the potential consumer benefit of a public "menu" of options convinced him that DFR collection of the data could improve transparency and accountability. Other members worried that publishing the information could raise awareness in ways that unintentionally boost participation in noninsurance sharing plans or prompt litigation against the state.

Members also debated whether the section would target faith-based groups. Supporters of the reporting language said the bill does not ask plans to disclose religious affiliation and would apply to any sharing arrangement regardless of faith; opponents said constituents and faith leaders interpret the language as potentially punitive.

The bill—s enforcement phrasing drew questions: a penalty provision included "may impose" language with a cap "not to exceed $5,000 per day," which some members described as regulatory enforcement and others called an enforcement tool. Representative Harvey noted that the amendment on the floor would remove the entire section rather than only the penalty.

The chair called a vote on Representative Harvey's amendment to strike section 10 of H.585. "A yes vote means that you find the amendment favorable," the chair said; members recorded three favorable and eight unfavorable votes. The amendment failed.

The committee proceeded to the next item on the agenda following the vote.