Insurance; coverage of complementary and alternative therapies under certain conditions; provide
House Bill 231 would amend Georgia’s insurance code to require health benefit policies issued, delivered, amended, or renewed in the state to cover certain complementary and alternative therapies. The bill mandates coverage for such therapies when provided by a licensed physician, acupuncturist, chiropractor, or massage therapist. It also creates an optional endorsement for coverage of therapies provided by a qualified herbalist, homeopath, or naturopath, but only when those services are ordered by a licensed physician.
The bill defines key terms such as acupuncture, chiropractic, herbalism, homeopathy, naturopathy, and the types of insurers and policies covered. It excludes several policy types from the mandate, including Medicare supplement policies, disability income policies, long-term care policies, workers’ compensation equivalent coverage, and self-funded employer plans governed by ERISA. The Commissioner of Insurance would be authorized to adopt rules and regulations to implement the new requirements, and the mandated coverage could still be subject to approved exclusions, deductibles, coinsurance, and other limitations.
HB231 would add a new insurance coverage requirement to Chapter 24 of Title 33 of the Georgia Code, expanding the benefits that health benefit policies must make available in the state. It would affect insurers and health plans subject to Georgia insurance law by requiring coverage for specified alternative and complementary therapies, while leaving certain excluded policy categories untouched. The bill would also give the Insurance Commissioner rulemaking authority to define and administer the coverage framework, with an effective date of July 1, 2025.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative discussion. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to expand consumer access to alternative care options through insurance coverage, suggesting a generally pro-expansion policy approach. However, because no voting history or discussion is provided, the level of legislative support or controversy cannot be determined from the record.
The main potential points of contention are the mandate itself and the inclusion of alternative medicine modalities in insurance coverage. Insurers may object to added costs, administrative complexity, or uncertainty around what qualifies as a covered therapy or a “qualified” practitioner. Opponents of the bill may also question requiring coverage for services provided by herbalists, homeopaths, and naturopaths, even though those services would only be covered under an optional endorsement and, in that case, must be ordered by a licensed physician. Supporters would likely emphasize broader patient choice and access to nontraditional treatments.