HB1117 creates a new statutory framework for “elopement response devices,” which are wearable, portable, or integrated electronic safety tools that use GPS, RFID, Bluetooth, or similar technology to help identify, monitor, or quickly locate individuals at risk of wandering or leaving a safe area. The bill defines elopement and the devices covered, and it authorizes the Virginia I. Jones Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias Council and the Advisory Stakeholder Group on Autism-Related Needs to recommend these devices as safety tools for people at risk of elopement due to Alzheimer’s disease, related dementias, autism, or other cognitive, developmental, neurological, or memory-related conditions.
The bill requires the Maryland Medical Assistance Program, subject to budget and federal participation limits, to cover approved elopement response devices and associated supports for eligible recipients when ordered by a qualified licensed provider and documented in a qualifying plan. It also directs the Department of Health to establish prior authorization, replacement, maintenance, informed-consent, privacy, and data-minimization rules, and to seek any needed state plan or waiver amendments. The bill further requires certain insurers, nonprofit health service plans, and health maintenance organizations to cover approved devices and associated supports for eligible individuals beginning with policies and contracts issued, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027.
In addition to Medicaid and private insurance coverage, the bill requires state programs that fund or reimburse medical equipment or assistive technology for older adults or individuals with disabilities to treat approved elopement response devices as medical devices, durable medical equipment, or assistive technology. It also allows the Department of Health, in consultation with the State Department of Education, to issue guidance for school-based billing or cost allocation when federally allowed, including for use in school settings. The bill sets reporting requirements through 2029 on implementation, utilization, costs, and outcomes.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive. The House passed the bill unanimously, 132-0, and the bill received a favorable committee report with amendments. The context suggests broad agreement on the public-safety and caregiving benefits of locating devices for vulnerable populations, especially individuals with dementia or autism who may wander or elope.
The main points of contention are not reflected in recorded debate, but the bill itself shows likely policy sensitivities around privacy, consent, data retention, and eligibility. It also limits coverage to approved devices, requires medical necessity and documentation in a qualifying plan, and conditions Medicaid coverage on federal approval and available funding, indicating concern about cost, administrative controls, and proper use rather than opposition to the concept itself.
HB1117 adds new provisions to the Health-General, Human Services, and Insurance Articles of the Maryland Code. It creates Subtitle 32B on elopement response devices, expands Medicaid coverage for approved devices and supports, requires state programs to classify approved devices as medical devices or assistive technology when they fund equipment for older adults or people with disabilities, and mandates private insurance coverage for certain plans and carriers starting in 2027. It also establishes Department of Health implementation duties, privacy safeguards, and reporting requirements, thereby expanding access to safety-monitoring technology for eligible children and adults with dementia, autism, or other qualifying conditions.
No specific floor or committee objections are included in the available record, but the bill’s structure points to likely areas of concern: privacy and surveillance risks from location-enabled devices, informed consent for individuals who may lack capacity, data retention and access limits, and the cost impact on Medicaid and private insurers. The bill addresses these issues by requiring consent, privacy safeguards, data minimization, prior authorization, and federal approval for Medicaid coverage. Any disagreement would likely center on the scope of mandated coverage, the definition of eligible individuals, and whether school-based use or state-program treatment of these devices should be required.