Revise insurance laws relating to continuous glucose monitors and supplies
HB 947 would expand Montana insurance coverage requirements for continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and related supplies. It requires individual disability policies, certificates, and membership contracts delivered, issued, renewed, extended, or modified in the state to cover CGMs when a person has type I or type II diabetes and the device is medically necessary and prescribed by a licensed provider. The bill bars insurers from limiting coverage based on the stage of diabetes or whether the insured uses insulin, while allowing ordinary deductibles, coinsurance, and copays that apply to other covered services.
The bill also amends existing Montana insurance statutes governing group disability policies and state employee and university system health plans. It adds CGM coverage to the list of required diabetes benefits, alongside existing requirements for diabetes self-management training, diabetic equipment and supplies, and a $35 insulin copay cap for certain coverage. It also makes the new CGM mandate part of Title 33, chapter 22, part 3, sets an effective date of January 1, 2026, applies it to policies issued or renewed on or after that date, and includes a $25,000 general fund appropriation to the Department of Administration to administer the state employee health plan under the act.
HB 947 would amend sections 2-18-704 and 33-22-129, MCA, and create a new insurance coverage mandate for CGMs and monitor supplies in Montana. Its practical effect is to require many health and disability insurance products, including state employee and Montana University System plans, to cover medically necessary CGMs for people with type I or type II diabetes, subject to the same general cost-sharing rules as other covered benefits. The bill excludes certain policy types such as disability income, hospital indemnity, Medicare supplement, specified disease, and long-term care coverage, and it appropriates state funds for implementation.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable consideration in the House and early Senate action, passing the House Business and Labor Committee unanimously and clearing both House floor votes with comfortable margins. It also advanced through a Senate committee and a Senate second-reading concurrence vote, though that vote was closer than the House votes. The overall pattern suggests broad support for expanding diabetes-related coverage, with some reservations reflected in the narrower Senate margin.
The main policy issue is the scope and cost of mandating CGM coverage for insurers and public plans. Supporters likely view the bill as a diabetes access measure that aligns CGM coverage with medically necessary care, while opponents or skeptics may be concerned about premium impacts, insurer mandates, and whether the requirement should apply across all plan types. Another point of potential contention is the bill’s interaction with existing diabetes coverage rules, including the insulin copay cap and the treatment of state employee, university, and local government plans, though the available record does not include committee testimony identifying specific objections.