screen-shot-2018-04-11-at-8-16-41-am-221x300-7645711As the legislative session heads into its closing weeks, it’s time to update Mandate Watch, the Empire Center’s tally of bills that would impose additional coverage requirements—and costs—on health plans.

The goal is to raise awareness of an expensive habit in Albany: passing insurance mandates without thinking through the consequences.

Most such bills mandate coverage for services that go beyond the evidence-based recommendations of medical societies and other experts—and might therefore encourage unnecessary or wasteful care. Almost all would tend to push up premiums that are already among the highest in the country. None has been subjected to rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

Since most large employers are self-insured, and therefore exempt from state regulation under federal law, mandates mostly affect the small-group and non-group markets—where buyers are more likely to drop coverage if premiums grow too quickly.

Our latest search of pending legislation, summarized here, turned up 120 proposals for new insurance mandates. That’s up 29, or almost one-third, since Mandate Watch was inaugurated in March 2017.

Most are one-house bills with little chance of becoming law. But six have passed the Assembly this year, and 25 have majority sponsors in both houses.

One of the more consequential bills—and probably the most expensive—is A. 2646 (Simotas)/S. 3148 (Savino), mandating coverage of in vitro fertilization (previously discussed in detail here). A similar law in Massachusetts adds an estimated $200 a year to the average cost of coverage for a family of four.

Other proposals include:

Some of these bills exceed mainstream guidelines. The American Cancer Society, for example, recommends mammograms for women at average risk starting at age 45, and says they should be optional at age 40.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, meanwhile, urges biennial mammograms starting at age 50, and says they should be discretionary for women in their 40s.

By ignoring such guidelines, lawmakers run the risk of promoting unnecessary or even harmful procedures—and driving up premiums in the bargain.

To avoid such possibilities, the Legislature in 2007 voted to establish a commission to study the costs and benefits of proposed mandates before enacting them. Unfortunately, the officials responsible for appointing members of the panel never followed through, and Governor Cuomo vetoed its unused funding last year.

Looking to revive that good idea is Assemblyman Clifford Crouch (R-Bainbridge). He is sponsoring A. 2230, which would establish a Health Benefit and Cost Commission to review both existing mandates and new proposals.

“Many of the benefits mandated have served to ensure that people have access to care that they need, but this mandated coverage has also resulted in premium increases,” the sponsor’s memo says. “It is the sponsors’ belief that the Legislature and the public should have cost and benefit analysis before deciding whether to require all policies to include a certain benefit.”

About the Author

Bill Hammond

As the Empire Center’s senior fellow for health policy, Bill Hammond tracks fast-moving developments in New York’s massive health care industry, with a focus on how decisions made in Albany and Washington affect the well-being of patients, providers, taxpayers and the state’s economy.

Read more by Bill Hammond

You may also like

Lawmakers Seek To Revive a $10 Fee for Prescriptions That Was Dropped by DFS

A plan to require a $10.18 "dispensing fee" for filling drug prescriptions is back on the table in Albany – this time in the form of legislation rather than regulation. The Read More

How a Medicaid ‘Cut’ Could Lead to More Unionization of Home Care Aides

A money-saving maneuver in the newly enacted Medicaid budget could end up increasing costs in the long term – by paving the way for more unionization of the state's burgeoning home health workforce. Read More

Budget Deal Slows Medicaid Growth But Plants Seeds for Future Spending

The growth of New York's Medicaid spending is projected to slow but not stop as Governor Hochul and the Legislature effectively split their differences over health care in the newly enacted state budget. Read More

Albany’s New Health Insurance Tax Comes with Few Limits

The newly enacted state budget imposes a multibillion-dollar tax on health insurance without specifying who must pay how much – leaving those basic details to be decided later by the health commissioner in negotiation wit Read More

While New York’s Medicaid Budget Soared, Public Health Funding Languished

Four years after a devastating pandemic, the state has made no major investment to repair or improve its public health defenses. While funding for Medicaid over the past four years Read More

A Medicaid Grant Recipient Sponsors a Pro-Hochul Publicity Campaign

While much of the health-care industry is attacking Governor Hochul's Medicaid budget, at least one organization is rallying to her side: Somos Community Care, a politically active medical group in the Bronx that recently r Read More

Loss of Patients and Revenue Foreshadowed Downsizing for SUNY Downstate

The SUNY-owned hospital in Brooklyn facing a newly announced downsizing plan has seen its patient volume and revenue plunge over the past decade, according to a review of its financial reports. Read More

How a Medicaid Program To Improve Nursing Home Care Ended Up Paying for Union Benefits

New York State's budget-making process sometimes works like a closed loop, as interest groups on the receiving end of state spending reinvest a portion of their proceeds to lobby Albany for still more money. Read More