State Highway Administration - Urban Core and Urban Center Traffic Control Devices - No Turn on Red
HB0381, titled the “Healing Our Scars Act,” would require the Maryland Medical Assistance Program and certain private health coverage entities to cover aesthetic services and restorative care for victims of domestic violence. The bill defines the affected population by reference to existing Family Law provisions defining a victim of domestic violence, and it limits coverage to services provided to treat physical injuries caused by domestic violence and deemed medically necessary by a licensed physician.
The bill directs the Maryland Medical Assistance Program to add this benefit beginning January 1, 2026, and it also creates a new Insurance Article section requiring insurers, nonprofit health service plans, and health maintenance organizations to provide the same coverage for policies and contracts issued, delivered, or renewed in Maryland on or after that date. It also clarifies that the managed care organizations under Medicaid are subject to the same requirement as carriers. In practical terms, the bill would expand mandated health coverage in both public and private insurance markets for reconstructive or cosmetic treatment tied to domestic violence injuries.
HB0381 would amend the Health - General and Insurance Articles to create a new mandated benefit for domestic-violence-related aesthetic and restorative care, while also adding the same requirement to Medicaid. It would affect insurers, nonprofit health service plans, HMOs, managed care organizations, and the Maryland Medical Assistance Program, and it would apply to policies and plans renewed on or after January 1, 2026. The bill would not change the definition of domestic violence itself, but would incorporate existing Family Law definitions into coverage eligibility.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a victim-support and health-access proposal, with a humanitarian and restorative purpose. Because there is no recorded debate in the provided materials, there is no documented public committee sentiment to characterize beyond the sponsor’s decision to withdraw it.
The main policy issue likely to generate debate is the scope of required coverage and whether aesthetic services and restorative care should be treated as medically necessary benefits when tied to domestic violence injuries. Potential points of contention include cost impacts on Medicaid and private carriers, the medical-necessity standard, and whether the mandate should extend to cosmetic or reconstructive procedures that may be viewed as outside traditional coverage. The bill’s withdrawal means no recorded opposition or support is available in the provided context, but those cost and coverage questions are the most likely areas of disagreement.