Michigan Senate Bill SB0358

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/24/23
• Refer: 5/24/23
• Report Pass: 6/14/23
• Refer: 6/14/23
• Engrossed: 6/14/23
• Report Pass: 9/28/23
• Enrolled: 10/18/23
• Chaptered: 10/24/23
• Passed: 10/24/23

Caption

Insurance: health insurers; providing coverage equivalent to a certain percentage of the full actuarial value of benefits under a health insurance policy; require. Amends 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.100 - 500.8302) by adding sec. 3406ee.

Impact

If enacted, SB 358 would have a considerable impact on how health insurance is structured within the state. By mandating specific levels of coverage, the bill aims to enhance the consumer protections associated with health insurance policies. This change is expected to increase the availability and affordability of health insurance options for individuals and small groups, potentially leading to better health outcomes as more individuals may opt for coverage that aligns more closely with their needs. However, this could also prompt insurers to adjust their pricing structures to accommodate the increased coverage requirements.

Summary

Senate Bill 358 aims to amend the existing health insurance laws in Michigan by introducing specific requirements regarding the minimum levels of actuarial value that health insurance policies must provide. Specifically, insurers that offer health insurance policies in the individual or small group market are required to provide at least one of several predefined levels of coverage, which range from 60% to 90% of the full actuarial value of the benefits. This measure seeks to ensure that residents have access to more comprehensive health insurance options, thereby addressing concerns over coverage accessibility and affordability for Michigan residents.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 358 appears to be generally supportive among advocates for healthcare reform and consumer protection. Proponents argue that the bill is a positive step toward ensuring that residents have access to adequate health coverage, especially for those in vulnerable economic situations. On the other hand, concerns have been raised by some insurance companies and industry stakeholders about the financial implications of enforcing minimum coverage levels, suggesting that it might lead to increased premiums to maintain profitability.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding SB 358 include debates over the balance between regulation and market flexibility. Critics argue that imposing these minimum coverage requirements could limit insurers' ability to offer diverse policy options tailored to individual consumer needs. Additionally, some industry experts suggest that rigid actuarial value mandates may stifle innovation in insurance products. These discussions highlight an ongoing tension between enhancing consumer protection in health insurance and allowing insurers the flexibility to adapt to market dynamics.