AN ACT TO CREATE NEW SECTION 83-41-218, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REQUIRE HEALTH INSURERS TO PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENT TO PHARMACISTS FOR SERVICES AND PROCEDURES AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN THAT PROVIDED TO OTHER NONPHYSICIAN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS IF THE SERVICE OR PROCEDURE IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE OF A PHARMACIST AND OTHERWISE WOULD BE COVERED IF PROVIDED BY ANY HEALTH CARE SERVICE PROVIDER OR OTHER PERSON; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Summary
HB557 creates a new section of Mississippi insurance law requiring health insurers and third-party administrators to reimburse pharmacists for covered services and procedures at a rate no less than that paid to other nonphysician health care providers. The requirement applies only when the pharmacist is acting within the scope of practice defined in state law and when the service or procedure would otherwise be covered if performed by another covered provider.
The bill applies to policies, medical service plans, and hospital service contracts issued or renewed in Mississippi on or after January 1, 2027. It is set to take effect July 1, 2026, giving insurers and administrators time to adjust payment systems and coverage administration before the reimbursement mandate becomes operative.
Impact
The bill would add Section 83-41-218 to the Mississippi Code and expand existing insurance reimbursement rules by expressly protecting pharmacists from being paid less than other nonphysician providers for comparable covered services. It affects health insurers, third-party administrators, pharmacists, and policyholders by potentially increasing reimbursement obligations for certain pharmacist-delivered clinical services, while tying coverage to the pharmacist’s statutory scope of practice under Section 73-21-73.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong, bipartisan support for the bill: it passed the House 119-0 and the Senate 51-0 as amended. With no committee transcript available, the record suggests the measure was broadly viewed as a straightforward reimbursement parity bill rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
No recorded committee debate is available, and the unanimous votes indicate little visible opposition in the legislative record provided. Any potential points of contention would likely center on insurer cost impacts, administrative implementation, and how broadly pharmacist services may be billed under the scope-of-practice standard, but those concerns are not reflected in the available discussion or votes.