A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning health.
Summary
HB 1393 creates a new chapter in Indiana law addressing the relationship between unpaid medical bills and access to care. It defines “consumer,” “health care debt,” “health care provider,” and “necessary services,” and then prohibits a health care provider from refusing to provide necessary services solely because a consumer owes, or is alleged to owe, health care debt to that provider. The protection extends not only to the consumer personally, but also to a minor or incapacitated person for whom the consumer is legally responsible or authorized to act.
The bill defines “necessary services” narrowly as care needed to prevent or treat serious permanent or temporary disfigurement, permanent or protracted loss or impairment of a bodily function, loss of consciousness, or death. A violation is treated as a deceptive act under Indiana’s consumer protection law, but enforcement is limited to action by the attorney general rather than private lawsuits. The bill is effective July 1, 2026, and also makes conforming additions and cross-references in the Indiana Code to support the new chapter.
Impact
HB 1393 would add IC 16-51-2 to the Indiana Code and make related definitional amendments in IC 16-18-2. It would impose a new statutory duty on health care providers in Indiana not to deny emergency- or life-preserving necessary services based solely on a patient’s unpaid or disputed medical debt. The bill also creates a specific enforcement mechanism by classifying violations as deceptive acts under Indiana’s deceptive consumer sales law, enforceable only by the attorney general, which gives the state a targeted consumer-protection remedy without creating a private cause of action.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be policy-driven and consumer-protective, with the bill framed as ensuring access to essential medical care regardless of debt status. The measure’s structure suggests an intent to balance patient access and provider debt collection by limiting the prohibition to necessary services and by restricting enforcement to the attorney general. No recorded opposition, amendments, or vote history is available in the provided context.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the tension between protecting patients from care denial and preserving providers’ ability to respond to unpaid bills. Providers may be concerned that the bill limits leverage in collecting health care debt, especially where the debt is disputed or alleged rather than established. Another possible issue is the bill’s narrow definition of “necessary services,” which may prompt debate over whether the scope is too limited or too broad in practice. The enforcement choice—attorney general only, with no private right of action—may also be significant to both consumer advocates and providers, because it limits litigation exposure while potentially reducing individual remedies.