An Act amending the act of December 20, 1996 (P.L.1492, No.191), known as the Medical Foods Insurance Coverage Act, further providing for declaration of policy.
Summary
HB 211 amends Pennsylvania’s Medical Foods Insurance Coverage Act to update the policy declaration describing aminoacidopathies and related metabolic disorders. The bill changes the statute’s language from the outdated term “mental retardation” to “intellectual disabilities,” while keeping the underlying finding that untreated or improperly managed amino acid metabolism disorders can cause severe intellectual and physical disabilities.
The measure is primarily a terminology and policy-statement update rather than a substantive change to insurance coverage requirements. It does not appear to alter who is covered, what treatments must be covered, or the mechanics of the existing medical foods insurance law; instead, it modernizes the legislative findings to reflect current medical and disability language.
Impact
HB 211 amends Section 2(2) of the Medical Foods Insurance Coverage Act, a Pennsylvania statute governing insurance coverage for medical foods used to treat phenylketonuria and other aminoacidopathies. Its legal effect is limited to revising the declaration of policy, replacing an obsolete and offensive disability term with current terminology. The bill may affect how the statute is read and cited, but it does not create new coverage mandates or expand eligibility for benefits.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly and unanimously supported throughout the legislative process. It passed the House Insurance Committee, House Appropriations Committee, the full House, Senate Banking and Insurance Committee, Senate Appropriations Committee, and the full Senate with no recorded dissenting votes. The unanimous votes suggest the measure was viewed as a straightforward, noncontroversial update to statutory language.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record, and no committee transcripts were provided. The only likely point of discussion is the replacement of outdated terminology in the policy declaration, which may have been intended to align the statute with modern disability language and avoid stigmatizing wording. Because the bill does not change insurance benefits or impose new costs, there is no indication of opposition from insurers, advocates, or lawmakers.
In casualty insurance, further providing for conditions subject to which policies are to be issued and for group accident and sickness insurance; and, in community health reinvestment, further providing for definitions.
In casualty insurance, further providing for conditions subject to which policies are to be issued and for health insurance coverage for certain children of insured parents.