New Jersey Assembly Bill ACR113

New Jersey 2026-2027 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/26
• Refer: 2/19/26

Caption

Amends Constitution to prohibit denial of coverage by certain health insurers based on preexisting conditions.

Summary

ACR113 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit certain health insurance carriers from imposing exclusions of benefits, including denial of coverage, based on a preexisting condition. The resolution defines a preexisting condition as a health condition that existed before the effective date of coverage, or before the date of denial if coverage is denied. It also specifies that the prohibition would apply to health benefits plans issued in New Jersey by carriers the State can regulate, including private insurers, health maintenance organizations, hospital and medical service corporations, multiple employer welfare arrangements, and the State Health Benefits Program and School Employees' Health Benefits Program. The measure would place the question before voters at a general election after final legislative approval, with a ballot question and interpretive statement explaining that the amendment would bar insurers from denying benefits because of a prior health condition. It also clarifies that self-funded health plans are excluded because they are governed by federal law under ERISA and are not subject to this state constitutional amendment.

Impact

If adopted, the amendment would add a new protection to Article I of the New Jersey Constitution and constrain state-regulated health insurers from using preexisting conditions as a basis to deny benefits or coverage. It would affect private carriers subject to state regulation as well as the State Health Benefits Program and School Employees' Health Benefits Program, while leaving self-funded employer plans outside its reach. The proposal would therefore reinforce consumer protections in the individual and fully insured group markets, but would not alter federal law governing self-insured plans.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no documented partisan or stakeholder reaction in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the resolution appears to be framed as a consumer-protection measure aimed at preserving access to coverage for people with prior health conditions. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context means sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill's stated protective purpose.

Contention

The main policy distinction in the resolution is between state-regulated insured health plans and self-funded plans governed by federal law. That carveout is likely the central point of legal and practical limitation, because the amendment would not reach all employer-sponsored coverage. Another possible area of contention is the breadth of the constitutional approach itself: rather than relying on statute, the bill would embed the protection in the state constitution, which is a stronger and less easily changed form of law. No specific opponents or disputed issues are identified in the provided materials.