AN ACT relating to coverage for hearing aids and related services.
HB 164 expands Kentucky’s mandated hearing-aid coverage for children under 18. It requires health benefit plans to cover the full cost of one hearing aid per hearing-impaired ear, up to $2,500 every 36 months, along with related services needed to assess, select, fit, and adjust the device. The bill also clarifies the definition of “hearing aid,” includes parts and accessories such as earmolds, and excludes batteries and cords. It allows an insured person to choose a more expensive device and pay the difference without penalty, and it bars a plan from paying a new claim if the insured received a covered hearing aid claim within the prior three years.
The bill also amends the state employee health insurance statute to require the state-sponsored plan for public employees and dependents to include the same hearing-aid benefit for insured individuals under 18, with the same $2,500 cap and 36-month limit. In addition, it updates the list of health coverage mandates applicable to public employee plans and preserves existing requirements related to autism coverage, amino acid-based formula, special enrollment for pregnant women, and other statutory health benefits. The act applies to health benefit plans issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, and takes effect on that date.
Its practical impact is to increase required insurance coverage for pediatric hearing care in both the private market and the state employee plan, which should reduce out-of-pocket costs for families of children with hearing loss. It also raises the mandated benefit level from the prior $1,400 cap to $2,500 and broadens the statutory definition of hearing aid coverage to include related services and accessories. Insurers and administrators offering covered plans will need to adjust benefit design, claims processing, and network adequacy to comply with the new mandate.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The recorded votes were unanimous in both chambers, with 93-0 House votes and a 37-0 Senate vote, indicating broad bipartisan support. No committee transcript or recorded floor debate is provided, and the voting history suggests the bill was viewed as a straightforward health-benefit expansion rather than a contested policy change.
There is little visible contention in the available record. The main policy issue embedded in the bill is the cost and scope of an insurance mandate, especially the higher coverage cap and the requirement that plans provide related services. Another technical point is the three-year limit on repeat claims, which balances expanded coverage with cost control. No legislators or stakeholder groups are identified in the materials as opposing the measure.
HB 164 amends KRS 304.17A-132 to expand mandated hearing-aid coverage for insured children under 18 and amends KRS 18A.225 to require the state employee health plan to provide the same benefit. It increases the coverage cap to $2,500 per hearing-impaired ear every 36 months, defines related services, and requires coverage for hearing aids and related services prescribed and dispensed by licensed professionals. The bill applies to plans issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, affecting private health benefit plans, insurers, administrators, and the state-sponsored employee health insurance program.
The bill’s sentiment appears overwhelmingly positive and supportive. It passed the House and Senate unanimously, with no recorded opposition in the available votes. The lack of committee testimony or recorded controversy suggests the measure was treated as a broadly accepted health coverage expansion for children with hearing loss and for public employee health plans.
The principal substantive issue is the cost of a mandated insurance benefit, especially the increase in the hearing-aid cap from $1,400 to $2,500 and the requirement to cover related services. Insurers and plan administrators may be concerned about premium impacts, network adequacy, and claims administration, while supporters are likely focused on access and affordability for families. The bill also includes a three-year waiting period for repeat covered claims, which appears designed to limit utilization and may reflect a compromise between coverage expansion and cost containment.