An Act amending the act of May 17, 1921 (P.L.682, No.284), known as The Insurance Company Law of 1921, in casualty insurance, providing for coverage for prostate cancer screening.
Summary
HB281 would amend Pennsylvania’s Insurance Company Law of 1921 to require health insurance policies issued, offered, or renewed in the Commonwealth to cover the full cost of prostate cancer screening for certain high-risk covered persons. The mandate applies to people age 40 and older who are at elevated risk because of a family history of prostate cancer, a genetic alteration or cancer associated with increased risk, or other factors when a physician determines early detection is medically appropriate.
The bill specifies that covered screening must include prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests and digital rectal examinations, and it bars cost-sharing for the required coverage. In practical terms, insurers would have to pay for these screenings without deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance for qualifying individuals, subject to the bill’s effective-date and implementation timing for filed and non-filed policies.
Impact
HB281 would add a new section to the state insurance code governing casualty/health insurance coverage and would create a new statewide preventive-care mandate for prostate cancer screening. It would affect health insurers, health plans, and covered policyholders in Pennsylvania by requiring first-dollar coverage for specified screenings for high-risk adults age 40 and older. The bill also defines key terms such as cost-sharing, family history, first-degree relative, and prostate cancer screening, and it sets delayed applicability rules for policies depending on whether rates or forms must be filed with regulators.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the apparent sentiment is supportive and preventive in nature. The measure is introduced by multiple House members and is framed as a health coverage expansion aimed at early detection and reducing barriers to screening for people at elevated risk. No recorded opposition, amendments, or roll-call votes are provided in the available context.
Contention
The main policy issue likely to generate debate is the insurance mandate itself, especially the requirement that coverage be provided without any cost-sharing. Insurers or cost-conscious lawmakers could object to the added premium impact and the expansion of mandated benefits, while supporters would emphasize early detection, family-history risk, and physician discretion for medically appropriate screening. Another possible point of discussion is the age threshold of 40 and the bill’s reliance on physician judgment for “other factors,” which gives some flexibility but may also raise questions about scope and utilization.
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.