Research Facilities and Testing Facilities That Use Animals - Prohibitions and Adoption Requirements (Animal Research Modernization and Best Practices Act of 2026)
HB0666 requires the Maryland Medical Assistance Program and specified private health carriers to cover calcium score testing for certain individuals beginning January 1, 2026. The bill ties coverage to the most recent American College of Cardiology guidelines and limits eligibility to people who have at least three specified risk factors: diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or a family history of premature coronary artery disease.
The measure adds a new coverage mandate to Maryland insurance law and extends the same requirement to managed care organizations and Medicaid. It applies to insurers, nonprofit health service plans, health maintenance organizations, and managed care organizations for policies and contracts issued, delivered, or renewed in the state on or after January 1, 2026. The bill is framed as a preventive-care expansion intended to improve early detection of cardiovascular risk.
The bill amends the Health - General and Insurance articles to create a new statutory coverage requirement for calcium score testing. It adds a Medicaid coverage obligation under the Maryland Medical Assistance Program and a parallel mandate for private health insurers, nonprofit health service plans, and health maintenance organizations, with managed care organizations treated the same as carriers. The practical effect is to require coverage for a preventive cardiac screening test for qualifying high-risk patients, shifting costs to public and private payers and potentially increasing access to early heart disease risk assessment.
The available legislative record suggests broad support for the bill, as reflected by its enactment and the strong House passage margin of 121-13. The text and structure of the bill indicate a preventive-health policy goal, and there is no committee transcript in the provided materials showing organized opposition or extensive debate. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable toward expanding coverage for a targeted screening test for higher-risk patients.
No committee discussion or recorded vote details were provided beyond the final House passage, so specific objections are not documented in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s design, likely points of contention would center on the cost of a new mandated benefit, whether the eligibility criteria are too broad or too narrow, and whether coverage should be tied to evolving professional guidelines rather than fixed statutory standards. Any concerns would most likely come from insurers, budget-minded lawmakers, or stakeholders focused on utilization and medical necessity.