House Bill 5242, the State Living Donor Protection Act, would prohibit insurers from denying, limiting, canceling, or otherwise discriminating in coverage terms for a person solely because that person is a living organ donor. The bill applies this protection across several lines of insurance, including individual and group life insurance, major medical coverage, disability insurance, long-term care insurance, and health care corporation major medical policies. It also bars insurers from conditioning continued coverage on a person’s agreement not to donate an organ.
To implement that policy, the bill amends multiple sections of the insurance code and adds a new section for group accident and sickness insurance. In each affected article, it adds language making it unlawful to treat living organ donor status as the sole basis for adverse underwriting, pricing, cancellation, or other coverage decisions, while preserving the Insurance Commissioner’s authority to enforce the provisions. The bill does not appear to change general underwriting rules for other risk factors; instead, it creates a specific anti-discrimination rule tied to organ donation status.
Impact
The bill would modify West Virginia insurance law in five separate code sections, creating a uniform prohibition on adverse insurance treatment based solely on living organ donor status. It would affect insurers offering life, group life, major medical, group major medical, long-term care, and health care corporation coverage, and would give the Insurance Commissioner express enforcement authority. The practical effect is to limit underwriting and pricing decisions that rely only on donor status, while leaving insurers free to consider other actuarial risks and existing lawful rating factors.
Sentiment
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or vote history, so there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a consumer-protection and donor-support bill intended to encourage living organ donation by reducing insurance-related concerns. The overall framing is protective and affirmative toward donors, with no indication in the supplied record of partisan or procedural controversy.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the scope of the anti-discrimination rule and how it would interact with insurers’ underwriting discretion. The bill repeatedly bars adverse action taken “solely” because of living organ donor status, but insurers may still be concerned about how to distinguish donor status from related medical risks or claims history. Another possible issue is enforcement and compliance across multiple insurance lines, especially where the bill adds similar language to several articles and relies on the Insurance Commissioner to police violations. No specific objections or amendments are shown in the provided record.