Georgia House Bill HB961

Georgia 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Report Pass: 2/24/26
• Engrossed: 3/4/26
• Refer: 3/6/26

Caption

Surprise Billing Consumer Protection Act; insurance coverage for certain out-of-network ambulance transportation service; provide

Impact

Should HB 961 be enacted, it would significantly alter existing provisions related to ambulance services and insurance coverage within the state. The bill would mandate that insurance providers reimburse for out-of-network ambulance services at a defined rate, rather than allowing them to impose unregulated fees. This change aims to lead to fairer billing practices and could reduce the instances of unreasonably high fees that consumers face, thus enhancing overall healthcare affordability.

Summary

House Bill 961, also known as the Surprise Billing Consumer Protection Act, seeks to provide clear regulations surrounding insurance coverage for certain out-of-network ambulance transportation services. This legislation aims to protect consumers from unexpected high medical bills that often arise from emergency situations where they are transported by an ambulance that is not part of their health insurance network. By actively addressing surprise billing, the bill intends to enhance consumer confidence and ensure that individuals are not financially burdened due to unforeseen medical events.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 961 appears to be generally favorable, with widespread support from consumer advocacy groups and healthcare professionals who recognize the burden that surprise bills can place on families. Legislators advocating for the bill emphasize the importance of consumer protection in medical emergencies. However, there are concerns voiced by some insurance companies about the financial implications of mandated coverage for out-of-network services, which could lead to increased operational costs.

Contention

Notable points of contention in discussions around HB 961 include the debate over how to balance consumer protections with the costs to insurance companies and ambulance service providers. Opponents argue that forcing insurance to cover out-of-network services at certain rates may lead to increased premiums for policyholders. Proponents counter that the benefit of protecting consumers from excessive charges outweighs the potential drawbacks. This discussion underscores significant concerns about the sustainability of insurance practices and the impacts of emergency medical service billing on state healthcare economics.