Texas House Bill HB3017

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/10/11
• Out of House Committee: 4/28/11
• Voted on by House: 5/11/11
• Refer: 3/17/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/17/11
• Report Pass: 4/21/11
• Voted on by Senate: 5/24/11
• Engrossed: 5/11/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 5/11/11
• Report Pass: 5/17/11
• Enrolled: 5/24/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to the prohibited use of discretionary clauses in certain health maintenance organization and insurance contracts.

Impact

The implementation of HB3017 will have a significant impact on the Texas Insurance Code, specifically in the areas pertaining to how health coverage and insurance policies are structured. By prohibiting discretionary clauses, insurance companies may need to revise their contracts to comply with this new standard. As a result, policyholders will gain stronger rights to appeal denials of claims, thus potentially increasing the accountability of insurers in their decision-making processes. This shift could lead to a healthier dialogue between insurers and their customers, fostering a more equitable insurance landscape.

Summary

House Bill 3017 seeks to prohibit the use of discretionary clauses in certain health maintenance organization (HMO) and insurance contracts in Texas. By defining what constitutes a discretionary clause, the bill aims to ensure that covered individuals can contest or appeal adverse eligibility decisions or benefit determinations made by HMOs and insurers. This legislative change is geared towards enhancing consumer protections in the health insurance market, allowing policyholders a fair opportunity to challenge unfavorable decisions and promoting transparency within the insurance process.

Contention

While proponents argue that HB3017 enhances patient rights and improves the healthcare experience by making insurance more accessible and equitable, there are concerns about the legislation's operational implications for health maintenance organizations and insurers. Some industry representatives have discussed the potential for increased litigation and disputes surrounding claims adjudication as a consequence of removing discretionary clauses. This could lead to rising costs for insurers, which may translate into higher premiums for consumers in the long run. The debate surrounding the bill reflects a broader conflict between consumer protection and business operational flexibility.