Michigan House Bill HB5728

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/18/26
• Refer: 3/18/26

Caption

Health: licensing; references to licenses for certain substance use disorder services programs in the prudent purchaser act; modify to include those exempt from licensure. Amends sec. 2 of 1984 PA 233 (MCL 550.52). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5729'26

Summary

House Bill 5728 amends the Michigan Prudent Purchaser Act’s definitions section. The bill updates and modernizes several statutory definitions used in agreements between insurers and health care providers, including definitions for commissioner, health care provider, health facility, organization, provider panel, prudent purchaser agreement, and third-party administrator. It also revises references to state health and mental health licensing laws and updates terminology to reflect current agency names and program descriptions. A key substantive change is that the definition of “health facility” would expressly include substance use disorder services programs that are licensed or exempt from licensure under the Public Health Code or the Mental Health Code. The bill also updates the language around health care providers and facilities to align with current statutory structure and terminology, while preserving the overall framework of the prudent purchaser act. The bill is tie-barred to House Bill 5729, meaning it would not take effect unless the companion bill is also enacted.

Impact

The bill would amend section 2 of 1984 PA 233, the Prudent Purchaser Act, by broadening and clarifying the statutory definitions that govern provider contracting and network arrangements. Its main legal effect is to ensure that substance use disorder services programs, including those exempt from licensure, are treated as health facilities for purposes of the act. It also updates cross-references to the Public Health Code, Mental Health Code, and state agency terminology, which could affect insurers, health care corporations, third-party administrators, and provider networks operating under prudent purchaser agreements.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is largely technical and administrative in nature, with no recorded committee testimony or votes indicating significant opposition or support. The caption describes the measure as a licensing-reference update, and the text focuses on conforming statutory language rather than changing the basic regulatory scheme. Overall, the sentiment appears neutral to favorable, especially for stakeholders seeking clearer inclusion of substance use disorder service providers in existing health care contracting definitions.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the expansion of the definition of “health facility” to include substance use disorder services programs that are exempt from licensure, which could affect how these programs are treated in provider networks and contracting arrangements. Stakeholders concerned with regulatory scope, network participation, or insurance contracting rules could view that change as substantive even though the bill is framed as a definitional update. The tie-bar to HB 5729 also means the bill’s effect depends on companion legislation, which may be relevant to legislative strategy rather than policy disagreement.