Water Companies and Sewage Disposal Companies - Eminent Domain Proceedings and Service Rates
Summary
HB1187 requires certain Maryland health insurers, nonprofit health service plans, health maintenance organizations, and managed care organizations that already cover chemotherapy to also cover scalp cooling systems used to preserve hair during chemotherapy treatment. The bill applies to policies, contracts, and health benefit plans issued, delivered, or renewed in Maryland on or after January 1, 2026.
The measure adds a new section to the Insurance Article, creating a specific coverage mandate for cancer treatment-related supportive care. It does not appear to regulate how scalp cooling systems are provided or priced, but instead requires insurers subject to the law to treat them as a covered benefit when chemotherapy coverage is offered.
Impact
The bill would amend Maryland insurance law by adding Section 15-861 to the Insurance Article and expanding required health coverage for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Affected carriers would need to include scalp cooling systems in covered benefits for applicable plans beginning with the 2026 plan year for new, delivered, or renewed policies and contracts. The practical effect is to shift some out-of-pocket costs for hair-preservation treatment from patients to insurers and health plans.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or recorded support/opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears consumer- and patient-oriented, aimed at improving access to a chemotherapy-related supportive treatment. The absence of recorded votes or hearing testimony in the provided context means overall sentiment cannot be measured from the available record.
Contention
Because no hearing transcript or vote history is included, specific points of contention are not documented in the supplied materials. In general, bills mandating insurance coverage can raise concerns about premium impacts, medical necessity standards, and whether the benefit should be required statewide. Supporters would likely emphasize patient quality of life, while potential opponents could focus on added costs to insurers and plan sponsors.