Prohibits a health insurance issuer from denying a non-opioid prescription in favor of an opioid prescription. (8/1/18)
Impact
The enactment of SB 145 directly impacts state laws surrounding healthcare and insurance practices. It represents a significant shift towards encouraging non-opioid therapies among patients suffering from chronic pain, aligning state policy with public health goals aimed at combating the rising incidence of opioid addiction. Furthermore, the bill fortifies the rights of patients to receive adequate coverage for non-opioid prescriptions, thereby promoting a wider range of treatment options that may be more suitable for certain individuals based on their unique health situations.
Summary
Senate Bill 145, proposed by Senator Gary Smith, aims to change how health insurance issuers treat prescriptions for chronic pain. Specifically, the bill prohibits health insurance companies from denying coverage for non-opioid medications in favor of opioid prescriptions, addressing a growing concern about the opioid epidemic. The legislation recognizes the importance of providing patients with alternative treatment options without forcing them into opioid therapy due to insurance limitations. It was enacted into law effective August 1, 2018, thereby solidifying the obligation of healthcare providers to prioritize non-opioid treatments when prescribed for chronic pain.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB 145 has been generally positive among healthcare advocates and organizations focused on combating the opioid crisis. Supporters argue that the bill empowers patients and respects their treatment options, fostering a safer healthcare environment. However, there may be concerns from some healthcare providers about potential implications regarding the management of chronic pain and the accessibility of necessary treatments, which can lead to debates on balancing patient choice with effective pain management strategies.
Contention
Notable contention exists around the implementation of SB 145, particularly among healthcare professionals regarding how to interpret and apply the law in clinical practice. Some express apprehension about whether insurance companies may find ways to circumvent the requirements by implementing other criteria that may not sufficiently prioritize non-opioid prescriptions. The ongoing dialogue highlights the necessity for clear guidelines and continued education for providers and insurers alike to ensure that the spirit of the law is upheld while addressing the challenge of chronic pain management.
Prohibiting certain health insurers from requiring cost-sharing for nonopioid prescription drugs or providing less favorable coverage for such drug than that for opioid or narcotic prescription drugs for the treatment of pain.
Relating to the regulation of prescriptions for controlled substances, including certain procedures applicable to electronic prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances.