Insurance; require health benefit policy coverage for medically necessary orthotic and prosthetic devices and their materials and components
HB87, as substituted by the Senate Committee on Insurance and Labor, amends Georgia insurance law to require clearer disclosure on insurance declarations pages and premium billing notices. For any policy issued, delivered, renewed, or issued for delivery in Georgia, the bill requires the notice to plainly show the policy deductible in both dollar and percentage terms, the premium as an annual amount, the state insurance premium tax as both a dollar amount and percentage, county and municipal insurance taxes as both a dollar amount and percentage, and any fees, charges, or surcharges.
The bill is primarily a transparency measure rather than a coverage mandate. It does not change what benefits are covered or how premiums are set, but it requires insurers to present cost components in a more standardized and understandable way. The effective date is January 1, 2027, and it applies prospectively to policies issued or renewed on or after that date.
HB87 would add a new Code section to Title 33, Chapter 24 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, creating a disclosure requirement for insurers operating in Georgia. It would affect declarations pages and premium billing notices by mandating itemized presentation of deductibles, premiums, premium taxes, local insurance taxes, and other charges, which could require insurers to revise billing systems, policy forms, and consumer notices. The bill applies to all insurance policies issued, delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed in the state on or after January 1, 2027.
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill, with the House passing HB87 by a wide margin of 171 yeas to 2 nays. No committee transcript is available, but the substance of the bill indicates a consumer-protection and transparency focus that is generally likely to attract broad bipartisan support. The lack of recorded committee debate in the provided materials limits insight into any nuanced opposition.
The main potential point of contention is the administrative burden on insurers, who may need to update forms and billing systems to separately calculate and disclose multiple tax and fee components. Another possible issue is whether the required disclosures will meaningfully improve consumer understanding or simply add complexity to insurance documents. However, the voting record provided shows very little visible opposition, suggesting any objections were limited or not strongly reflected in the House vote.