Michigan House Bill HB4621

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/23/23
• Refer: 5/23/23
• Report Pass: 6/21/23
• Engrossed: 6/28/23
• Refer: 6/28/23
• Report Pass: 9/28/23
• Refer: 9/28/23
• Report Pass: 10/5/23
• Enrolled: 10/10/23
• Chaptered: 10/19/23
• Passed: 10/19/23

Caption

Insurance: health insurers; coverage for dependents under the age of 26; require. Amends sec. 3403 of 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.3403).

Impact

The impact of HB 4621 on Michigan's insurance laws is significant. It seeks to enhance access to health coverage for young adults, which could potentially alleviate financial burdens on families. By requiring insurers to provide uniform benefits for dependents, this bill is designed to strengthen the overall health insurance framework. Additionally, the measure addresses enrollment barriers by stipulating that insurers cannot deny coverage based on a child's legitimacy, tax status, or residency, ensuring that more children can be included under their parents’ insurance policies.

Summary

House Bill 4621 aims to amend the 1956 Public Act 218, which governs the insurance and surety business in Michigan. This bill specifically focuses on health insurance policies by requiring insurers to provide dependent coverage for children up to the age of 26. It ensures that this coverage is equally accessible, without imposing different rates or benefits for dependent children relative to other covered dependents. The provisions include obligations for insurers to cover newly born children from birth with applicable health insurance benefits, thereby emphasizing a commitment to providing comprehensive health coverage for young dependents.

Sentiment

General sentiment regarding HB 4621 is largely positive, particularly among families with dependents aged 26 and younger. Supporters argue that extending coverage to young adults is a crucial step in ensuring their wellbeing and reducing the risks associated with uninsured young adults. However, there may also be concern among insurance providers regarding the implications of increased dependency on their policies and potential financial implications stemming from the extended coverage requirements.

Contention

Notable points of contention might arise from insurance companies that are concerned about the financial implications of mandating dependent coverage without a corresponding adjustment in premiums. While advocates believe that the benefits of providing health insurance coverage to more young people outweigh the costs, opponents may argue about the sustainability of such mandates and the need for insurers to maintain fiscal responsibility given the changes in policy structure.