Texas House Bill HB2723

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of House Committee: 5/2/11
• Introduced: 3/9/11
• Voted on by House: 5/6/11
• Refer: 3/16/11
• Report Pass: 4/12/11
• Engrossed: 5/6/11
• Refer: 5/9/11

Caption

Relating to notice of premium increase for certain health benefit plans.

Impact

If enacted, HB2723 would significantly alter the regulatory environment for health insurance in Texas, particularly in how premium increases are communicated to policyholders. This bill mandates that the notice provided to consumers must include vital contact information for both the state department and the Texas Consumer Health Assistance Program. This ensures that enrollees can seek assistance or file complaints regarding their coverage changes. By providing more transparency in the notification process, the bill aims to empower consumers and improve their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health coverage.

Summary

House Bill 2723 seeks to enhance consumer protection regarding premium increases for certain health benefit plans. The bill mandates that health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and insurance providers must provide written notification at least 60 days before any premium rate increase takes effect. The notice must specify the existing premium amount, the new premium amount post-increase, and the percentage change. This requirement applies to individual health insurance policies and plans issued to small employers. The objective is to ensure that consumers have sufficient time to understand and respond to changes in their health coverage costs.

Contention

Despite its consumer-friendly intent, HB2723 may raise concerns among insurance providers about the administrative burden required to comply with these new notice requirements. Some proponents of the insurance industry argue that the cost implications of increased notifications could be passed onto consumers in the form of higher premiums. Additionally, there may be contention regarding how this bill interfaces with existing regulations, potentially leading to debates in legislative circles about the necessity of such stringent requirements versus the operational flexibility of insurers.