Transcript Highlights:

• session that we did is moving from a general fund cost for this program to the assessment model in the MCHA
• assessment<01:13:22.080> model<01:13:22.320> in<01:13:22.560> the<01:13:22.640> MCHA
• <01:13:23.440> So,<01:13:23.520> I assessment model in the MCHA.
• So, I assessment model in the MCHA. So, I appreciate<01:13:24.000> that.

Bills: HF3388, HF400

Keywords: HF3388, Minnesota premium security plan, reinsurance, health insurance, group health carriers, MCHA, MNsure, individual market, premium stabilization, carrier assessment, health insurance assessment, premium security plan account, state innovation waiver, high-risk pool, reinsurance payments, healthcare premiums, insurance carriers, deferral of assessment, financially impaired condition, HF400

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from the prior day and then heard House File 400, a bill described as a defrayal measure for health insurance mandates. Representative Perryman said the bill would not block future mandates, but would require the state to pay the added costs of any new mandated benefits so those costs would not be shifted to premium payers. She and supporters framed the bill as a way to protect affordability for Minnesota employers, workers, and families, especially in the fully insured market. Testimony in support came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. They argued that Minnesota has a high number of mandated benefits, that each new mandate adds cost to premiums, and that businesses—especially small and midsize employers—are already struggling with rising health insurance costs. The health plans representative said the bill would use the existing Commerce defrayal process to reimburse plans for eligible mandate-related claims, allowing those costs to be removed from premium rates. Several members echoed support, saying the bill would improve transparency by showing the fiscal impact of proposed mandates and help prevent people from being priced out of coverage. Members also explored how mandates apply in the market and how premiums are set. Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer explained that, unless otherwise specified, mandates generally apply to the individual, small group, and fully insured large group markets, while self-insured ERISA plans and other markets are generally outside that scope. Representative Elkins noted that the affected market is relatively small and said small businesses are increasingly moving to self-insured plans because of cost. He and others raised concerns about affordability, while Representative Smith argued that mandates often ensure needed care and that the bill shifts costs to taxpayers rather than insurers. Representative Bacham added a personal example from tribal self-insurance, saying preventive physicals had saved lives and asking whether other factors besides mandates are driving insurer costs. No amendments were offered, and the bill was laid over for possible future consideration.

Bills: HF4502, HF3388, HF4106, HF400, HF4138, HF4118, HF4203

Keywords: trusted contact, financial exploitation, elder abuse, elder financial abuse, fraud prevention, financial institution, banking, credit union, broker-dealer, account security, dormant account, consumer protection, scam, suspicious activity, protective services, law enforcement reporting, Minnesota Statutes chapter 45A, HF3388, Minnesota premium security plan, reinsurance

Transcript Highlights:

• So prior to the Affordable Care Act, MCHA managed the state's high-risk pool to help provide coverage
• I remember the days of MCHA, and I remember how effective MCHA was in the state of Minnesota and how
• um and I remember how days of mcha um and I remember how effective<00:42:21.880> mcha<00:42:22.440
• In 2013, $176 million in MCHA claims was not covered by MCHA and R... program and we thank all the legislators
• We do, however, have significant concerns about the proposed new MCHA tax.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We're almost at 50 years of the MCHA program in the state of Minnesota.
• with your rejection letter, and MCHA would find a place for you to be able to buy coverage.
• What happened with the ACA in 2013, when that was adopted, the MCHA program that we had in the state
• we're almost at 50 years of the mcha we're almost at 50 years of the mcha program<00:09:48.360><
• <00:10:43.279> um to and chose to keep the mcha um to and chose to keep the mcha um framework

Bills: HF837

Keywords: health insurance, premium security plan, federal funding, state innovation waiver, Minnesota, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:48:07.319> the<00:48:07.400> Minnesota provided to mcha the Minnesota provided
• However, we do have significant concerns about the proposed new MCHA tax.
• <01:11:38.040> they<01:11:38.159> cannot<01:11:38.480> receive by mcha they
• It wouldn't have to be just MCHA; we could mix some other things in there too. Is that correct?
• It wouldn't have to be just MCHA; we could mix some other things in there too. Is that correct?

Bills: HF837, HF1903, HF499, HF794

Keywords: health insurance, premium security plan, federal funding, state innovation waiver, Minnesota, newborn safety, anonymity, healthcare provider, safe place, child welfare, HF499, nursing, nurse licensure, temporary permit, temporary nursing permit, Board of Nursing, endorsement licensure, reregistration, refresher course, health occupations

Transcript Highlights:

• So, prior to the Affordable Care Act, MCHA managed the state's high-risk pool to help provide coverage
• MCHA also works with Wakely, which is an actuarial company, to evaluate and report on high-cost claims
• out the members that are a part of mcha out the members that are a part of mcha I<00:12:57.880><
• However, we do have significant concerns about the new MCHA tax instead.
• <00:53:41.000> within and are then reimbursed by mcha within and are then reimbursed by mcha

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a reinsurance overview from Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer of the Minnesota Department of Commerce on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan. She explained that reinsurance helps stabilize premiums in the individual market by reimbursing insurers for high-cost claims, and said Minnesota’s program has lowered premiums, preserved carrier participation, and helped maintain consumer choice. She warned that without continued funding, the program would be depleted and individual-market premiums could rise by about 25%, with potential losses in coverage and access to care. She also described the program’s structure under a federal 1332 waiver, the role of MCHA in administering the program, and the state’s receipt of more than $650 million in federal pass-through funds to date. Dryer said the current program is funded through the end of 2025, though the federal waiver authority runs through 2027. The governor’s proposal would create a new assessment on insurers, estimated at roughly 2% to 3%, to fund the state share of the program and avoid another full waiver submission. She noted that the proposal assumes MinnesotaCare funding would be held harmless and that the program would be reduced if federal basic health plan funding were negatively affected. She also said projected costs changed because individual-market enrollment has grown and enhanced federal subsidies were removed from the estimate. Members raised concerns about the proposal’s impact on premiums and the history of the fund. Senator Rasmusson argued the new assessment amounts to a large tax increase on health insurance and questioned who would be assessed and whether the surcharge would be capped. Dryer responded that the assessment would be based on annual claims experience and market conditions, with final amounts determined at the end of each year, not monthly. Senator Duckworth and Senator Frentz supported reinsurance as a way to keep premiums lower, while also questioning how the program should be financed. Senator Green asked about the mechanics of the assessment and the role of the department in setting it, and Senator H questioned why the fiscal note assumed 12% annual growth for program costs when general premium growth was lower. No vote or formal action was taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• from last session is moving from a general fund cost for this program to the assessment model in the MCHA
• from last session is moving from a general fund cost for this program to the assessment model in the MCHA
• from last session is moving from a general fund cost for this program to the assessment model in the MCHA

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3388, and an A1 amendment was adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, would direct the Department of Commerce to seek another federal waiver to continue Minnesota’s reinsurance program and preserve the assessment-and-tax-credit funding model adopted last session. Chair O’Driscoll said the measure is intended to give future legislators options before the current reinsurance structure ends, warning that without it individual-market premiums could rise substantially and more people could lose coverage. Testimony was largely supportive. Dan Andre of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans said reinsurance has been a success since 2018, has lowered premiums by covering a portion of high-cost claims, and helped subsidize care for more than 5,000 Minnesotans in 2024. Ann New Brindley of the Minnesota Business Partnership and Steven Rubis of the Health Plan Partnership of Minnesota also backed the bill, saying market stability is important amid the loss of federal premium tax credits and that continued reinsurance would help prevent further premium increases and cost shifting. Jonathan Carter of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce likewise supported the bill, citing the program’s role in keeping Minnesota’s individual-market premiums among the lowest in the country. Members also discussed how the assessment and tax-credit mechanism works, with Chair O’Driscoll describing it as an assessment on plans followed by a tax credit against state liability. Representative Elkins questioned how insurers self-assess, and Representative Smith said the assessment model is preferable to a general-fund approach if the program continues. Representative Kaggel raised concerns about taxpayer costs and the broader health care system, while also saying the current system is unsustainable and in need of more fundamental change. The committee then renewed the motion to lay House File 3388, as amended, over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• In reality, reinsurance is the continuation of the premium support from taxpayers to the MCHA high-risk
• broad-based funding source either from the general fund or the health care access fund, and oppose the new MCHA
• broad-based funding source either from the general fund or the health care access fund, and oppose the new MCHA
• broad-based funding source either from the general fund or the health care access fund, and oppose the new MCHA

Keywords: 1187, senate, all