Indiana among states cranking up oversight of health insurers
Mounting public anger over health insurance is leading more state legislatures to eye tighter oversight of the industry, including its use of AI to screen claims and issue denials.
Why it matters: While congressional scrutiny has picked up, states remain the primary regulators of health insurance and are best positioned to address access to and adequacy of care.
The big picture: States have already been targeting prior authorization and other tools health plans use to manage health care use, with more than 90 different bills proposed nationwide last year, according to Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms.
The killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson revealed widespread anger over insurer decisions.
The calls for action are being amplified by physicians and other longtime insurer antagonists.
"With both sorts of pressures pushing on [state] legislators to take some action, I do think we're likely to see more bills advance in the 2025 legislative session," said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of Georgetown's center.
Zoom in: After several years spent focused on health care costs, Indiana lawmakers convened a task force in 2023.
The group's recommendations focused on increased transparency across the industry and standardizing prior authorization.
This session, bills to increase oversight of pharmacy benefit managers and restrict the use of prior authorization by insurers are moving.
Yes, but: A bill that would require a health care provider or insurer to disclose the use of artificial intelligence to make or inform any decision involved in the provision of health care or coverage has yet to be heard.
There's one more week for House Bill 1620 to be considered before the House's deadline for bills to move out of committee.
Between the lines: State efforts to oversee health insurers are expected to outpace those in the new Congress, in part because legislators tend to face less pressure covering the costs of changes in insurance law.
The Trump administration and Republican Congress also aren't expected to make insurance reforms key parts of their early policy agenda.
The latest: California has already prohibited the use of AI for coverage denials, and Bloomberg Law reported that lawmakers in Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania are vowing to bring up the issue this year.
The other side: The insurance industry has said the use of AI can improve customer experiences, speed the claims process and detect fraud.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Hospitals stunned by Senate GOP's Medicaid plan
Hospitals are hoping senators like West Virginia Republican Jim Justice will block a cut to their Medicaid payments. | Francis Chung/POLITICO One of the most powerful lobbies in Washington is redoubling its efforts to avoid a cut to Medicaid payments in the GOP's megabill. Hospital executives weren't happy last month when the House included a provision in its version of the bill freezing a loophole states have used to boost payments to hospitals serving the low-income patients enrolled in Medicaid. Hospitals have long enjoyed deference from lawmakers — since they both care for and employ their constituents. But they were infuriated when Senate Republicans on the Finance Committee released their version of the bill Monday. Their proposal went even further than the House measure in curtailing the ability of states to impose taxes on providers. States have used those taxes to gain a larger federal Medicaid contribution, which they have then directed back to hospitals with higher reimbursements. The Senate's proposal would lower the amount the 40 states that have expanded Medicaid under Obamacare can levy in provider taxes from 6 percent to 3.5 percent. It has hospital lobbyists painting a bleak picture of their financial prospects in a last-ditch effort to change senators' minds. 'No senator wants to be the reason their local hospital shutters its doors, and now is their opportunity to stop that from happening,' said a source familiar with hospital industry thinking, granted anonymity to speak freely on strategy. More than 250 hospital leaders flew into Washington on Tuesday to urge senators to preserve Medicaid as part of an American Hospital Association lobbying campaign. The association spent almost $8.5 million on lobbying in the first quarter of the year, a high water mark dating back almost two decades. 'There are aggressive conversations ongoing … to make sure that all senators recognize the vulnerability that it is going to potentially put all of our hospitals in,' said one stakeholder granted anonymity to speak on strategy, adding that the lobbying push will continue in the states later this week after senators depart Washington for the Juneteenth holiday. Hospitals have long gotten their way on Capitol Hill, as they don't just offer health care to a community but are sometimes its biggest employer. There are signs of encouragement this time around, too, as several influential GOP senators lodged objections to their colleagues' proposal after its release Monday. 'We've got all kinds of concerns,' Sen. Jim Justice ( who had accepted the House's language, said Tuesday. But for now, at least, anxiety is running high. The industry was able to get House Republicans to steer away from cuts to provider taxes. Instead, Republicans there installed a moratorium on any new taxes but allowed current ones to continue. Thirteen state hospital groups said they were okay with that. But the Senate went in another direction, and it has sent hospitals and their allies scrambling. 'The further the cuts that are made, the more devastating it is,' said Shantel Krebs, president and CEO of Avera St. Mary's, a hospital in South Dakota, in a call with reporters Tuesday. The Senate Finance Committee's version of the megabill keeps the moratorium in place, but only if the state is one of 10 that hasn't taken advantage of an Obamacare provision offering federal funds to expand Medicaid to cover lower-middle income people. States that have expanded Medicaid must lower their taxes to 3.5 percent. This would imperil more than 30 states and the District of Columbia that have taxes above 3.5 percent, according to data from the health care think tank KFF. The House version was palatable partly because red-state governors intervened to mitigate the impact, one hospital lobbyist said. 'I would assume there will be just a massive amount of pushback from states, and we'll see whether it moves the needle,' the person said. Hospitals are not used to losing on Capitol Hill. In recent years, they have successfully fought off efforts to lower Medicare payments for their outpatient clinics so they're in line with doctors' offices. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have criticized hospitals for getting paid more for performing the same service. Hospital groups have also successfully fought off a payment cut to safety net hospitals, which serve low-income patients, that lawmakers included in Obamacare. The cut aimed to help pay for the bill. And the Democrats who passed Obamacare in 2010 expected the Medicaid expansion would make the hospitals whole. But Congress has repeatedly passed legislation to block the cuts from taking effect at hospitals' request. Now, the industry is working against a Senate hungry for savings to pay for the megabill, the primary purpose of which is to extend the tax cuts President Donald Trump and a Republican Congress enacted in 2017. It's also up against conservatives' philosophical opposition to the state taxes. Some conservatives close to Trump have argued that states and hospitals are essentially engaged in 'money laundering' when they use provider taxes to boost federal Medicaid contributions and then send the money back to the hospitals. Brian Blase of the conservative Paragon Health Institute posted on X on Monday that even Joe Biden wanted to tackle provider taxes. 'The [Senate Finance] proposal is just a commonsense good government step to restore accountability in Medicaid and focus states on getting value from their programs,' he said. GOP dissent Senate Republicans can lose only three members and still pass the megabill if Democrats remain united in opposition. GOP leaders want to meet Trump's demand that they pass it by July 4. Hospitals listening to the tepid reaction from some in the GOP caucus to the provider tax restrictions see reason for hope. 'From the standpoint of West Virginia, I think the president outlined where he stood, and what's coming out right now could be much different, and so we've got concerns,' Justice said, referencing Trump's repeated pledge to protect Medicaid. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has largely declined to delve into specifics since the Finance Committee released its plan, but she reiterated her concerns about the provider tax language and said she's still 'asking for many changes.' The most outspoken pushback has come from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who spoke with Trump on Tuesday. Hawley told reporters that the Senate language is 'alarming' and 'surprising' and that Trump had told him he was also surprised by the language in the bill. Finance Chair Mike Crapo's decision to go further in curtailing the taxes than the House bill caught GOP senators off guard, after several indicated last week that they expected the Senate's plan would largely match the House's. The two chambers will have to agree on the bill text before Trump can sign it into law. The language Crapo settled on nets the Idaho Republican and Senate Majority Leader John Thune something they are desperately hunting: more savings. Crapo predicted that making changes to the Medicaid language would help give Republicans several hundred billion dollars to work with. Republicans can pass the bill with a simple majority if they adhere to special budget rules that require the bill not increase the deficit within a 10-year window. 'Every spending reduction that we were able to achieve was helpful in achieving the permanence,' Crapo said, referencing GOP plans to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. The 2017 law, in order to reduce the cost of the measure, set the tax cuts to expire at the end of this year. Crapo added that he was 'not surprised' that there was pushback from his colleagues and that the Medicaid language might not be fully locked in: 'Right now, we're vetting it,' he said. One lobbyist pointed out that hospitals would be happy to make a deal. 'Right now, the Senate bill is so bad for hospitals,' the person argued, 'that if it's softened a little bit, you could … almost neutralize them.'
New York Post
7 hours ago
- New York Post
How Trump's ‘big, beautiful' bill targets transgender medical procedures nationally
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on transgender medical procedures for minors — a controversial practice that could be outlawed nationally if President Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill clears the Senate intact. The House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes a provision barring the use of taxpayer money to fund so-called 'gender-affirming care,' for both children and adults. The provision, championed by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), would ban Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIPs) and Affordable Care Act (ACA) funds from being spent on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgeries, such as double masectomies and genital reconstruction. The so-called 'Crenshaw Amendment' — a last-minute addition to the massive piece of legislation — specifically amends the Social Security Act, halting federal payments for what the provision deems as medically unnecessary procedures. 3 Crenshaw's provision will save taxpayers $2.5 billions over the next 10 years, according to his office. REUTERS The provision will have to survive the Senate's strict rules governing the reconciliation process, specifically the Byrd Rule, to make it into the upper chamber's version of the legislation. The Byrd Rule prevents the inclusion of measures deemed 'extraneous' to the budget process. For instance, provisions that don't directly affect spending or revenue. The Byrd Rule is interpreted and enforced by the Senate parliamentarian. Crenshaw's office notes that taxpayers will save 'about $2.5 billion over 10 years' if the provision becomes law. 'That's the estimated savings from blocking federal funding — via Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA — for gender transition procedures,' the congressman's office states. 'With transition costs running up to $75,000 per patient, the numbers add up fast. This amendment cuts it off—saving money and saving lives.' Last month, Crenshaw vowed that his provision 'will become law,' arguing that it is 'long overdue.' 'Gender transition procedures are the lobotomy of our generation,' he said in a statement. 'So-called 'gender-affirming care' isn't healthcare — it's fringe science with no proven benefit and massive risks.' 3 The transgender surgery ban would codify and expand on President Trump's executive actions preventing federal agencies from using tax dollars to promote or fund gender transitions. AP 3 The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's transgender surgery ban on Wednesday in a 6-3 ruling. REUTERS In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court found that Tennessee's ban on transgender puberty blockers and hormone therapy treatments for minors does not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. More than half of US states have similar laws on the books. 'Today was not just a win for basic biology and common sense, but for human decency, sound medicine, and the dignity and safety of children everywhere,' Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said of the high court's ruling. 'As a doctor for over 25 years, I understand the gravity of these harmful so-called treatments radical activists have been pushing on children. They leave permanent scarring, sterilization, and other horrible side effects,' he added. 'Make no mistake, there's more work to do, and I remain committed to eliminating taxpayer-funded transgender procedures on both minors and adults.' Marshall's No Subsidies for Gender Transition Procedures Act is the Senate's companion legislation to Crenshaw's measure in the House.
8 hours ago
What to know about the impacts of the Supreme Court's ruling on transgender care for youth
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming surgery for transgender youth in a ruling that's likely to reverberate across the country. Most Republican-controlled states already have similar bans. In his majority opinion Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Tennessee's ban does not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. Since President Donald Trump returned to office this year, the federal government has been trying to restrict access. Here are some things to know about gender-affirming care and the court's ruling: Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, or their sense of feeling male, female, neither or some combination of both. Sometimes that's different from the sex they were assigned at birth. The services are offered to treat gender dysphoria, the unease a person may have because their assigned gender and gender identity don't match. Studies, including one from 2023 by researchers at institutions including London Children's Hospital and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, have found the condition is linked to depression and suicidal thoughts. Gender-affirming care encompasses counseling and treatment with medications that block puberty and hormone therapy to produce physical changes. Hormone therapy for transgender men causes periods to stop, increases facial and body hair and deepens voices. The hormones used by transgender women can have effects such as slowing growth of body and facial hair and increasing breast growth. Fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents receive gender-affirming medications, a study released this year found. Gender-affirming care can also include surgery, including operations to transform genitals and chests. These surgeries are rarely offered to minors. There are documented uses of genital surgery for adults dating back to the 1920s. But for youth, gender-affirming care has been more common since the 1990s. As a medical consensus emerged in support of gender-affirming care for youth, the issue also became politically divisive in other ways. Some states approved measures to protect transgender people, who make up around 1% of the nation's population. Many critics dismiss the idea that gender is changeable and lies along a spectrum. About two-thirds of U.S. adults believe that whether a person is a man or woman is determined by biological characteristics at birth, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May found. In the last five years, most GOP-controlled states have passed laws to block transgender girls from sports competitions for girls. About half the Republican-controlled states have now banned transgender people from using school bathrooms that align with their gender identity. Opponents of gender-affirming care sometimes refer to it as 'mutilation" and say people who transition when they're young could later regret it. In addition to Tennessee, 26 other states have passed bans or restrictions on gender-affirming care for youth. Judges have struck down the bans in Arkansas and Montana, though the legal fights there aren't over. All of the laws have been adopted in the past five years and nearly all have been challenged in court. The Supreme Court's decision may doom some of those challenges. But lawyers who challenged Tennessee's law said the ruling applies only to that policy – and that it doesn't automatically end the cases against other bans on gender-affirming care. Lambda Legal lawyer Karen Loewy noted that the opinion focused on the fact that it involved minors and that the court did not find sex-based discrimination against transgender people. Further, some of the lawsuits against the bans — including in Kansas, Montana, North Dakota and Ohio — are based on arguments rooted in state constitutions. It still possible that judges could find more protections in those state constitutions than are in the U.S. Constitution. It probably won't make any difference immediately. Several of those states have laws or executive orders intended to protect access to gender-affirming care for transgender minors. But the question about whether the care will continue isn't only about what's legal. It's also about funding. That's where Trump comes in. Trump campaigned last year pledging to rein in rights of transgender people. He's followed through on many fronts, though court challenges have resulted in some of his efforts being blocked, at least for now. He has ordered that no federal taxpayer money be used to pay for the care for those under 19. Enforcement of that order is on hold. Trump has also tried to block federal funding from institutions — including hospitals and the universities that run some of them — that provide gender-affirming care for youth. A judge has blocked that effort while challenges to it proceed. His administration published recommendations that therapy alone – and not medication – be used to treat transgender youth. The position contradicts guidance from major medical organizations. But it could impact practices. Other actions Trump has taken including initiating the removal of transgender troops from military service; ordering that transgender women and girls be kept out of sports competitions for females; erasing the word 'transgender' from some government websites; and saying the government would recognize people only by their sex at conception. That's resulted in efforts to move transgender women inmates to men's prisons and change how passports are issued to transgender and nonbinary people. A judge this week blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans. ___
