SB 311 would prohibit insurers that issue life insurance, disability insurance, or long-term care insurance from treating a person differently solely because the person is a living organ donor. The bill defines a living organ donor as someone who intends to donate or has donated all or part of an organ and is still living. Under the bill, insurers could not decline or limit coverage, require someone to forgo organ donation as a condition of coverage, or otherwise discriminate in issuance, cancellation, pricing, or other policy terms based only on donor status and without additional actuarial risk.
The bill also amends Indiana’s insurance unfair-practices statute to add violations of the new organ-donor protections to the list of unfair and deceptive acts in the business of insurance. That means an insurer that violates the new chapter would be subject to the state’s insurance enforcement framework under IC 27-4-1-4. The bill is set to take effect July 1, 2025, and applies to specified insurance products: life insurance, disability insurance, and long-term care insurance.
Impact
SB 311 would add a new chapter to the Indiana Code governing coverage for living organ donors and would expand the state’s unfair insurance practices law to cover discrimination against organ donors. It would directly affect insurers writing life, disability, and long-term care policies by limiting underwriting and coverage decisions based solely on donor status, while still allowing insurers to consider additional actuarial risks. The bill would also give the Department of Insurance an enforcement basis by classifying violations as unfair and deceptive acts and practices.
Sentiment
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented partisan or procedural split in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears to be a consumer-protection and pro-donation policy proposal, likely intended to reassure potential living donors that they will not lose insurance access or face higher costs simply for donating an organ. The bill’s tone is protective and regulatory rather than controversial on its face.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the line between prohibited discrimination based solely on donor status and permissible underwriting based on other actuarial factors. Insurers may be concerned that the bill could limit their ability to account for medical or mortality risks associated with organ donation, while supporters would likely argue that donor status alone should not be used to deny or penalize coverage. Another possible issue is how broadly the phrase “any other condition” and the requirement of “without any additional actuarial risks” will be interpreted in practice.