Alabama Senate Bill SB19

Alabama 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/17/25
• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 9/17/25
• Refer: 1/13/26
• Report Pass: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/15/26
• Report Pass: 1/28/26
• Enrolled: 2/19/26
• Passed: 2/26/26

Caption

Health care insurance; to eliminate cost-sharing for screening of men who are at high risk for prostate cancer

Summary

SB19 amends Alabama’s insurance code to require health benefit plans to cover prostate cancer screening without cost-sharing for two groups: men age 50 and older, and men age 40 and older who are at high risk for prostate cancer. The bill defines “men at high risk” to include African American men and men with certain family histories or genetic markers associated with increased prostate cancer risk. Covered screening must include, at a minimum, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test and a digital rectal examination. The bill also prohibits insurers from reducing coverage because of these requirements and bars them from penalizing physicians or providers who order screenings consistent with the law. It is named the David “Mac” McElhaney and Roy S. Johnson Prostate Cancer Prevention Act and takes effect October 1, 2027.

Impact

SB19 amends Sections 27-58-1 and 27-58-4 of the Code of Alabama 1975 to add a new definition of high-risk men and to create a no-cost preventive screening mandate for prostate cancer. It affects health insurers, HMOs, accident and sickness insurers, and other health benefit plans subject to Alabama insurance law, requiring them to cover specified screening services without deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance for the covered populations. It also protects providers from insurer retaliation tied to ordering the covered screenings.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and was enacted with overwhelming margins in both chambers. Final votes were especially strong in the House and Senate, including unanimous or near-unanimous votes on later actions and concurrence in the House amendment. The voting history suggests general agreement with the bill’s preventive health purpose and its focus on reducing barriers to early prostate cancer detection.

Contention

There is little evidence of major controversy in the available record. The only notable opposition appears to have been a small number of dissenting votes in the Senate during initial consideration, while the House and later Senate actions were overwhelmingly favorable. Any substantive policy debate likely centered on the insurance mandate and the cost-sharing exemption, but no committee transcript is available showing detailed objections or amendments beyond the final House amendment process.