HB3503, titled the Kidney Donation Anti-Discrimination Act, would make it unlawful for life insurance providers to discriminate against a person because they are a living kidney donor. The bill bars discrimination in the offering, issuance, cancellation, pricing, policy conditions, or amount of coverage for life insurance when the only basis is the person’s status as a living kidney donor, unless there is evidence of additional actuarial risk unrelated to the donation.
The bill also creates a private right of action, allowing an affected person to sue in federal district court for damages and attorney’s fees if they are harmed by a violation. It defines both “life insurance policy” and “living kidney donor,” and includes a rule of construction stating that the bill does not preempt state or local laws that provide greater protection to living kidney donors.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a federal anti-discrimination rule governing life insurance underwriting and coverage decisions for living kidney donors. It would affect life insurance companies, applicants, and policyholders by limiting the use of kidney donation status alone as a basis for adverse treatment, while still allowing insurers to rely on other actuarial factors. The bill would also expose insurers to federal lawsuits and attorney’s fee liability, and it would preserve stronger state or local protections where they already exist.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally supportive or favorable sentiment, as the bill was introduced with bipartisan sponsorship and there is no recorded committee opposition, vote, or hearing transcript in the provided materials. The measure appears framed as a targeted consumer-protection and donor-protection bill rather than a broad insurance overhaul. Because no votes or committee debate are included, there is no evidence of formal controversy in the available record.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the balance between protecting living kidney donors from unfair insurance treatment and preserving insurers’ ability to price policies based on actuarial risk. The bill addresses this by allowing discrimination only when supported by additional, unrelated actuarial risks, but insurers or industry stakeholders could still object to federal limits on underwriting discretion and the creation of a private right of action. Another possible issue is federal involvement in an area where state insurance regulation already plays a major role, though the bill explicitly avoids preempting stronger state protections.