New Hampshire House Bill HB774

New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/25
• Refer: 1/23/25
• Refer: 1/28/25
• Report DNP: 3/6/25

Caption

Requiring Medicare supplemental policies to cover pre-existing conditions.

Summary

HB 774 would change New Hampshire insurance law to require Medicare supplement policies, and related Medicare Advantage plan disclosures, to cover pre-existing conditions. The bill amends the state’s standards for accident and health insurance and Medicare supplemental insurance so that a Medicare supplement policy may not exclude or limit benefits because a claim involves a pre-existing condition. It also adds definitions for “Medicare Advantage Plan” and “preexisting condition,” and updates disclosure and free-look notice requirements for Medicare supplement policies and Medicare Advantage plans. The bill further requires insurers to provide an outline of coverage for Medicare supplement policies and Medicare Advantage Plans, and it expands the 30-day right to return coverage for both products. It also states that beneficiaries eligible for Medicare, including those leaving a supplement plan or Medicare Advantage plan, must be offered a community-rated supplemental plan during the Medicare open enrollment period, and it prohibits medical underwriting or denial of Medigap coverage based on pre-existing conditions. In addition, any insurer offering Medicare Advantage Plans in New Hampshire would also have to offer Medicare Supplement or Medigap plans.

Impact

HB 774 would directly amend RSA 415-A and RSA 451-F, altering the state’s insurance code as it applies to Medicare supplement policies and Medicare Advantage Plans. The bill would remove the ability of Medicare supplement policies to exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions, add statutory definitions relevant to Medicare coverage, and expand consumer disclosure and cancellation protections. It would also impose new market participation requirements on insurers offering Medicare Advantage Plans by requiring them to also offer Medicare Supplement or Medigap coverage.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive of expanding consumer protections for Medicare beneficiaries. The bill’s sponsors and committee referral suggest it was framed as a health and elder-affairs issue focused on access to supplemental coverage and protection from underwriting barriers. No contrary positions are documented in the provided record, but the proposal is likely to draw interest from insurers because it restricts underwriting and broadens mandatory coverage obligations.

Contention

The main points of contention would likely involve the insurance market effects of prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions and medical underwriting for Medicare supplement plans. Insurers may object to being required to cover higher-risk applicants and to the mandate that companies offering Medicare Advantage Plans also offer Medigap coverage, which could affect product offerings and pricing. Another possible issue is the bill’s interaction with federal Medicare rules and state authority over Medicare-related insurance products, especially where the bill references conformity with federal law and regulations.