Arkansas House Bill HB1277

Arkansas 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/26/23
• Refer: 1/26/23
• Failed: 5/1/23

Caption

To Regulate A Prudent Lay Person Review Process By An Insurer; And To Prohibit The Use Of A Licensed Medical Professional To Review A Prudent Lay Person Decision.

Impact

If enacted, HB1277 would have significant implications for current healthcare practices and regulatory frameworks in the state. It prohibits insurers from reconsidering emergency care decisions made by laypersons, establishing a protective mechanism to shield individuals from the bureaucratic complexities that often accompany emergency medical decisions. Additionally, by eliminating the role of licensed medical professionals in these reviews, the bill seeks to bolster patient confidence in their right to seek immediate medical assistance without hesitation or fear of retrospective judgment.

Summary

House Bill 1277 aims to regulate the review process utilized by insurance and healthcare providers when assessing the decisions made by prudent lay persons who seek emergency medical care. The legislation proposes that insurers, health maintenance organizations, hospitals, and health benefit plans must not employ licensed medical professionals to review a prudent lay person's choice to secure emergency medical services. This provision is crucial to ensure that these decisions are not subjected to scrutiny from individuals with specific medical qualifications, which could deter individuals from seeking necessary emergency care owing to fear of potential backlash from their insurance providers.

Contention

The bill has provoked debate amongst legislators and healthcare advocates regarding the appropriateness of limiting review processes. Proponents argue that this measure is a necessary reform to empower patients and safeguard against potential abuses by insurers. They emphasize that removing the layer of professional medical review simplifies the process and prioritizes patient needs. Conversely, opponents of the bill caution that it may inadvertently diminish the quality of care oversight by removing checks that ensure only medically sound decisions are validated. This critique highlights the balance between patient autonomy and ensuring adherence to medical guidelines, sparking discussions about efficacy and safety in emergency healthcare.