House Bill 6030 would amend Michigan’s Insurance Code to require insurers offering group disability insurance policies to treat the closure of a health system, or the removal of a health system from an insurer’s network, as a qualifying event for a special enrollment period. It would also allow an insured to end a group disability policy without penalty if their network health system closes or is dropped from the network.
The bill further requires an insurer to offer a group disability insurance policy to a person whose prior group disability coverage was affected by another insurer’s network closure or removal of a health system. If the new insurer offers coverage in that situation, it must credit the insured for deductibles and out-of-pocket maximum amounts already paid under the prior policy. The bill defines “health system” broadly to include hospital systems and related affiliated health-care operations, and it incorporates federal definitions for qualifying events and special enrollment periods.
HB6030 would add a new section to the Michigan Insurance Code governing group disability insurance policies. It would create new consumer protections and continuity-of-coverage requirements for insureds affected by hospital or health-system network disruptions, and it would impose corresponding obligations on insurers to permit special enrollment, policy termination without penalty, and transfer of accumulated cost-sharing credits. The bill would directly affect insurers issuing or renewing group disability policies in Michigan and insured individuals whose coverage is disrupted by provider network changes.
The available record does not include committee testimony, recorded debate, or votes, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative discussion. Based on the bill text, the measure appears consumer-protective and aimed at reducing disruption when health systems close or leave insurer networks, which suggests a generally favorable policy posture toward affected insureds. However, the absence of voting history or transcripts means the level of legislative consensus cannot be determined from the provided materials.
The main potential point of contention is the burden placed on insurers, who would have to treat health-system closures or network removals as special enrollment triggers, allow penalty-free termination, and potentially carry over deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums from another carrier’s policy. Insurers may view these requirements as administratively complex or costly, while consumers and advocates for continuity of care would likely support them as necessary protections when access to a health system is disrupted. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided record.