SB3400, titled the “Ally’s Act,” would require certain private health insurance plans to cover hearing devices and related services for individuals who qualify based on a physician’s or qualified audiologist’s determination of hearing loss or another indication for an auditory implant device. The bill specifically requires coverage for auditory implant devices such as cochlear implants and bone conduction implants, external sound processors, maintenance, repairs, upgrades or replacements every five years, adhesive adapters, softband headbands, hearing assessments, preoperative evaluation, surgery, postoperative care, fitting and activation visits, and aural rehabilitation services.
The bill amends multiple federal statutes to create parallel coverage mandates across the Public Health Service Act, ERISA, and the Internal Revenue Code, and it also applies the new requirement to grandfathered health plans under the Affordable Care Act. It sets parity rules so that cost-sharing and treatment limits for these hearing-related benefits cannot be more restrictive than those applied to substantially all other medical and surgical benefits, and it bars plans from denying or limiting coverage when the service is deemed medically necessary by a physician or qualified audiologist. The effective date is for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2026.
The bill would add a new federal insurance coverage mandate for hearing devices and related services, affecting group health plans and health insurance issuers in both the employer-sponsored and individual markets, as well as certain grandfathered plans. It would amend the Public Health Service Act, ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Affordable Care Act to ensure consistent nationwide coverage rules and to limit insurers’ ability to impose separate cost-sharing, treatment restrictions, or medical-necessity denials for covered hearing services.
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears supportive and bipartisan in nature. The bill was introduced by Senator Curtis with several cosponsors from both parties, including Senators Warren, Capito, Hickenlooper, and Warnock, suggesting cross-party interest in expanding access to hearing care. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal opposition or amendment activity is evident here.
The main policy issue likely to generate contention is the cost and scope of the coverage mandate, particularly the requirement for plans to cover expensive implant devices, upgrades every five years, and associated surgery and rehabilitation. Insurers and employer plan sponsors could object to the breadth of the mandate, the parity rules limiting cost-sharing and utilization management, and the prohibition on denying coverage once medically necessary. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize access, affordability, and the need to standardize coverage for people with significant hearing loss.