Georgia House Bill HB323

Georgia 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Report Pass: 2/26/25
• Engrossed: 3/6/25
• Refer: 3/10/25
• Report Pass: 3/20/26

Caption

Bridging the Gap for ALS and Chronic Kidney Disease Act of 2025; enact

Summary

HB 323 amends Georgia’s insurance code to require a “benefit provider” to give a treating healthcare provider a written accounting of payments and reimbursements made to an injured party for that provider’s services, if the provider makes a written request. The accounting must be provided within 30 days. The bill defines key terms such as benefit provider, injured party, and treating healthcare provider, and applies broadly to insurers, HMOs, health benefit plans, PPOs, employee benefit plans, and other entities that pay or reimburse healthcare-related expenses or other benefits. The measure is procedural rather than substantive in the sense that it does not create a new benefit or mandate coverage; instead, it creates a disclosure obligation intended to improve transparency about payments tied to an injured person’s medical care. It would be added as a new Code section in Title 33, Chapter 3, and would take effect immediately upon gubernatorial approval or becoming law without approval, with conflicting laws repealed.

Impact

The bill would add a new section, O.C.G.A. § 33-3-28.1, to Georgia’s insurance laws. It would require insurers and other benefit providers to furnish payment and reimbursement information to a treating healthcare provider upon request, which could affect claims administration, billing coordination, lien/subrogation-related information flow, and recordkeeping practices for insurers and providers. The practical impact would fall on benefit providers and healthcare providers involved in third-party injury claims, especially where medical services are paid through insurance or other benefit arrangements.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received in the House, passing 174-2, indicating broad bipartisan support or at least little opposition at that stage. No committee transcript is available in the provided materials, and the Senate history shown reflects a later motion to table remaining legislation rather than a direct recorded vote on the bill itself. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a modest transparency measure rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the administrative burden and privacy/claims-handling implications for benefit providers, who would be required to produce payment accountings within a fixed 30-day window. On the other side, treating healthcare providers and injured parties may support the measure because it can clarify what has been paid for services and reduce disputes over balances, reimbursements, or coordination of benefits. Because the bill is narrowly focused on disclosure, there is little evidence in the provided record of major substantive disagreement, but the requirement could still raise concerns among insurers and plan administrators about compliance and workflow.