Delaware Senate Bill SB31

Delaware 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/18/23
• Engrossed: 1/26/23
• Refer: 1/18/23
• Refer: 3/2/23
• Enrolled: 3/28/23
• Passed: 5/12/23

Caption

An Act To Amend Title 18 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Primary Care Coverage.

Impact

The impact of SB 31 is significant in that it rectifies a technical error found in SB 227 from the previous General Assembly. While SB 227 had established provisions requiring that chronic care management be exempt from patient charges, an unintentional deletion during its amendment led to discrepancies in coverage between different types of health insurance plans. By consolidating the requirements for all group and blanket plans with those of individual and state employee plans, SB 31 aims to create uniformity in health insurance coverage and reduce the administrative confusion that had arisen from this prior inconsistency.

Summary

Senate Bill 31 aims to amend Title 18 of the Delaware Code regarding primary care coverage, specifically addressing the requirements around chronic care management services. The bill's primary objective is to ensure that coverage for chronic care management is not subject to patient deductibles, copayments, or fees. This change is intended to improve access to essential health services for patients managing chronic conditions, making it financially easier for them to receive necessary care.

Sentiment

Discussions surrounding SB 31 appeared to be supportive, as evidenced by its unanimous passage in both legislative chambers. The sentiment around the bill reflects a common goal among legislators to ensure equitable access to health care, particularly for individuals with chronic health conditions. There is an understanding that such amendments provide necessary clarity and enhance patient protections, which has garnered broad bipartisan support.

Contention

While there has not been overt contention surrounding SB 31, its context highlights a past issue related to the amendment process of health legislation. Opponents of the previous error could view SB 31 as a necessary corrective measure rather than a contentious change in policy. However, any potential contention would likely stem from broader debates surrounding healthcare funding and insurance provisions in the state rather than this bill itself.