Michigan House Bill HB4684

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/25/25
• Refer: 6/25/25

Caption

Insurance: health insurers; pain management service plan; require. Amends 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.100 - 500.8302) by adding sec. 3406ww.

Summary

House Bill 4684 would amend Michigan’s Insurance Code to require health insurers that issue, deliver, or renew policies in the state to develop a pain management access plan. The plan must provide adequate coverage and access to a broad range of pain management services, including nonopioid and nonnarcotic medications and nonmedication therapies that can serve as alternatives to opioid or narcotic prescriptions, following guidelines set by the Department of Insurance and Financial Services. The bill also requires insurers to submit their plans to the department for approval. In reviewing each plan, the department must evaluate whether the insurer provides adequate access to a broad spectrum of pain management services and whether any insurer policies create undue preference for opioid coverage or access over other pain management options. Insurers would also have to share educational materials with network providers and post information about the plan on a publicly accessible website.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would add a new section 3406ww to the Michigan Insurance Code and create a new regulatory requirement for health insurers operating in the state. It would not directly mandate specific treatments, but it would require insurers to structure coverage and provider education around broader pain management access, potentially affecting formulary design, utilization management, provider communications, and public-facing plan information. The Department of Insurance and Financial Services would gain oversight authority to review and approve insurer pain management access plans.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a public health and opioid-alternatives policy with a generally supportive or preventive intent. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative sentiment. The bill’s emphasis on expanding nonopioid options and improving transparency suggests it is aimed at addressing concerns about opioid overuse while preserving pain treatment access.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the bill’s requirement that insurers avoid policies that create “unduly preferential” coverage for opioids, which could raise questions about how much discretion insurers retain in designing pain management benefits. Insurers may also be concerned about administrative burden, compliance costs, and the need to revise coverage policies, provider education materials, and website disclosures. On the other hand, supporters would likely emphasize improved access to nonopioid and nonmedication pain treatments and reduced reliance on opioids.