To amend sections 3923.33, 3923.331, 3923.332, 3923.337, 3923.338, 3923.339, and 3923.42 and to enact section 3923.3310 of the Revised Code to provide Medigap policies for Medicare-eligible individuals under the age of 65.
HB24 would revise Ohio’s insurance code governing Medicare supplement policies (Medigap) and create a new section requiring insurers that sell Medigap coverage to people age 65 and older to also offer the same coverage to Medicare-eligible individuals under age 65 who qualify because of disability or end-stage renal disease. The bill sets an initial open enrollment period for those under 65, requires that the same benefits, protections, and procedures apply to the younger group, and bars higher premiums for the under-65 coverage than for the age-65 policy. It also specifies that the under-65 policies may not exclude or limit benefits for preexisting conditions.
In addition to the new under-65 coverage requirement, the bill updates and reorganizes existing statutory provisions on Medicare supplement policies. It preserves the Insurance Superintendent’s authority to adopt rules on policy standards, marketing, claims practices, loss ratios, premium increases, and prohibited policy provisions, and it keeps the existing framework for enforcement and penalties. The bill also clarifies that the Medicare supplement rules do not apply to long-term care insurance and repeals the current versions of the affected sections to replace them with the amended language.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to expand access to Medigap coverage in Ohio for disabled Medicare beneficiaries and people with end-stage renal disease who are under 65, while also constraining insurers’ ability to price or underwrite that coverage differently from coverage sold to seniors. It would affect insurers, health insuring corporations, fraternal benefit societies, and other issuers of Medicare supplement policies, as well as Medicare-eligible consumers under 65 who currently may have fewer supplemental coverage options.
Because the bill was only introduced and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes, there is no formal legislative record of support or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure, the likely policy sentiment is consumer-protection oriented, with a focus on equal access to supplemental Medicare coverage for younger disabled enrollees. Any potential contention would likely center on insurer concerns about mandated coverage, premium restrictions, underwriting risk, and the requirement to offer the same policy terms to a population that may have different cost profiles than the traditional 65-and-older market.
HB24 would amend Ohio Revised Code sections governing Medicare supplement insurance and enact a new section requiring Medigap issuers to offer coverage to Medicare-eligible individuals under age 65 who qualify through disability or end-stage renal disease. It would also prohibit higher premiums for those under 65 than for comparable age-65 coverage, require an open enrollment period, and bar preexisting-condition exclusions for the new coverage. The bill preserves the Insurance Superintendent’s rulemaking and enforcement authority and clarifies that these Medigap provisions do not apply to long-term care insurance.
There are no committee transcripts or votes in the provided record, so no direct legislative debate is available. The bill’s text suggests a generally pro-consumer, access-expanding purpose aimed at aligning supplemental Medicare coverage for younger disabled beneficiaries with coverage available to older Medicare enrollees. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments means the public sentiment in the materials is not documented, though the policy direction appears favorable to coverage expansion.
The main likely point of contention is between consumer advocates seeking equal access to Medigap for under-65 Medicare beneficiaries and insurers concerned about mandated participation, pricing limits, and actuarial risk. The bill requires issuers to offer the same coverage and prohibits higher premiums for the under-65 group, which could be viewed as a significant regulatory mandate. Another possible issue is the elimination of preexisting-condition exclusions for this coverage, which may raise concerns among carriers about adverse selection and premium adequacy.