Iowa House Bill HSB266

Iowa 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/27/25
• Refer: 2/27/25

Caption

A bill for an act concerning retirement and employment benefits associated with cancer, and making appropriations.(See HF 969.)

Impact

The financial implications of this bill are significant. It establishes a reimbursement structure for political subdivisions that incur costs associated with providing the mandated cancer screenings. The state is set to appropriate $1 million for fiscal year 2025-2026 to cover these reimbursements, limiting the amount to $1,250 per eligible employee every three years. This financial aid aims to alleviate the burden on local governments while ensuring that essential health screenings are readily available without any out-of-pocket expenses for employees. The bill reflects a growing recognition of the health risks associated with public service occupations, specifically concerning the diagnosis and management of cancer.

Summary

House Study Bill 266 (HSB266) is a legislative proposal aimed at enhancing retirement and employment benefits for public safety employees, specifically firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical services providers. It mandates that these public employers provide comprehensive health care benefits, including cancer screening examinations to employees. The bill delineates that these examinations should occur within the first three years of employment and at least once every three years thereafter. HSB266 intends to prioritize the health and safety of individuals who work in high-risk public service roles known to be exposed to occupational hazards, including increased cancer risks.

Contention

Notably, the bill expands the definition of cancer applicable to public safety personnel for disability benefits, which has been a point of contention. By broadening the definition to encompass a wider range of cancers, the bill aims to ensure that more employees are eligible for necessary support in case of a cancer diagnosis linked to their employment. However, critics may argue about the potential financial strain on state resources and the implications of such expansions on existing retirement systems. The requirement for local governments to comply with state mandates, even when funding is not guaranteed, could ignite debates regarding local autonomy and the fiscal responsibilities of municipalities.