The implications of AB 1601 on state law are significant as it would amend the Health and Safety Code and the Insurance Code to expand coverage for pediatric hearing aids. This requirement would serve to enhance access to necessary healthcare services for minors with hearing impairments. However, the bill includes a provision stating that these requirements would become inoperative if federal regulations deem them a discriminatory age limitation. This introduces a layer of complexity regarding the interaction between state and federal law, particularly concerning Medicaid regulations.
AB 1601, introduced by Assembly Member Bloom, seeks to mandate that health care service plans and health insurance policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2018, include coverage for hearing aids for enrollees under the age of 18 when medically necessary. The provisions outline the specific types of services that must be covered, which include initial assessments, fittings, adjustments, and maintenance for hearing aids. The bill reflects an effort to ensure that children with hearing impairments receive necessary medical support.
General sentiment around the bill appears to be supportive among healthcare advocates and families of affected children, as it seeks to address a critical need in pediatric health coverage. However, potential points of contention may arise regarding financial implications for insurance companies and the state, especially if additional costs are incurred under the provision that allows for state reimbursement of mandated healthcare costs. Stakeholders may raise concerns about balancing healthcare access with fiscal accountability.
Notable points of contention include the bill's sunset clause, with provisions that would invalidate the mandate if federal entities classify it as discriminatory. This highlights the ongoing tension between state initiatives to enhance healthcare access and federal guidelines that regulate such mandates. Furthermore, concerns about the potential financial burden on health insurers and the implications for policyholders may also drive debate as the bill moves through the legislative process.