Tennessee House Bill HB0949

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/23
• Refer: 2/2/23
• Refer: 2/13/24
• Refer: 2/20/24
• Chaptered: 4/3/24
• Passed: 4/3/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 56; Title 63; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to dental benefits.

Impact

The proposed amendments will significantly reshape how dental benefit plans operate within the state of Tennessee. By requiring dental carriers to furnish their policies and any material changes to providers no less than 30 days prior to implementation, the bill will promote a more predictable environment for dental professionals. This reform aims to protect providers from unexpected alterations to payment structures that could adversely affect their practice operations and financial stability.

Summary

House Bill 949, aimed at amending the Tennessee Code related to dental benefits, addresses several crucial aspects of the reimbursement processes between dental carriers and providers. The bill introduces clear definitions for terms like 'bundling' and 'downcoding', elucidating the means through which dental procedures are billed and compensated. Additionally, it mandates that any fees associated with payment methods must be disclosed to dental providers, thereby increasing transparency in financial transactions related to dental services.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 949 is primarily positive among dental professionals and provider associations, who view the bill as a necessary measure to enhance fairness and clarity in the business of dental care. By addressing concerns related to downcoding and bundling practices, which can lead to decreased reimbursement, stakeholders believe the legislation will benefit the provider community. However, there may be some contention regarding the mechanisms for implementing these changes and their potential impact on dental insurers.

Contention

Notably, the bill's language also specifies that it does not apply to TennCare or similar assistance programs, which might lead to discussions about the implications of these exemptions. Some stakeholders argue that excluding these programs may undermine the bill’s overall efficacy in ensuring fair practices across all dental services in the state. As the bill progresses through the legislative process, it will likely elicit further debate on the balance between regulatory oversight and operational flexibility for dental insurance providers.