AZ Legislative Update – May 2, 2025
Posted by [email protected] on May. 2, 2025 / Subscribe 0
Today marks the 110th day of the Arizona 57th Legislature, 1st Regular Session. Of the 1,679 bills introduced this year, the Legislature has now passed 240 with Governor Hobbs signing 93 and vetoing 52 (95 still awaiting action).
The number of outstanding bills is beginning to dwindle and both the House and Senate plan to move through most of them next week. Unfortunately, Republican leadership and the Governor are still nowhere close to a budget deal. As each day passes, it appears to be more and more likely that session will go well into May or even possibly June. That being said, the process remains rather fluid, and things can change quickly.
Health Insurance
HB 2175 Prior Authorization; Claims (Willoughby): HB 2175 passed out of the Senate on Tuesday, 29-0. The bill adds new requirements for health care insurers regarding the denial of claims and prior authorizations. Specifically, it stipulates that before a health care insurer may deny a claim or prior authorization, submitted by a provider, on the basis and involving medical necessity, the medical director shall individually review the denial. During each review, the medical director shall exercise independent medical judgement and may not rely solely on recommendations from any other source.
HB 2109 Forced Organ Harvesting; Insurance; Prohibition (Biasiucci): HB 2109 passed out of the Senate on Tuesday, 18-11. The bill allows insurers and the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System to limit coverage for human organ transplants or post-transplant care if the transplant operation is performed in, or the human organ to be transplanted was procured by a sale or donation originating in the People's Republic of China or the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
HB 2332 Postpartum Health; Education; Advisory Committee (Willoughby): HB 2332 passed out of the Senate on Tuesday, 25-3. The bill requires the Department of Health Services to compile relevant educational materials and information regarding maternal mental health conditions, including postpartum depression, for use by health care institutions, health care professionals and patients and to establish an Advisory Committee on Obstetrics, Gynecology and Maternal Mental Health in Rural Communities.
SB 1291 Health Insurers; Provider Credentialing; Claims (Angius): SB 1291 passed out of the Senate on Tuesday, 29-0, on Final Read and is currently awaiting the Governor’s approval. The bill would update the Arizona Revised Statutes by introducing new requirements and timelines for the health insurance provider credentialing process. Specifically, it mandates that health insurers complete the credentialing process within 60 calendar days and load applicant information into their billing systems within 30 days of receiving a complete application. Insurers would also be required to acknowledge receipt of applications within seven days and provide detailed notices for any incomplete applications, informing applicants within the same timeframe. The bill further stipulates that insurers cannot toll the processing time more than three times for incomplete applications. Additionally, the bill modifies existing definitions and repeals section 20-3456, establishing new provisions that allow providers to receive payment for services rendered during the credentialing process under certain conditions. Claims submitted within one year cannot be denied based on timing if they meet the new statutory requirements. The bill also emphasizes the need for health care providers to disclose their credentialing status and estimated costs to patients prior to service delivery.
Insurance Operations
HB 2193 Captive Insurers; Certificate of Dormancy (Livingston): HB 2193 passed out of the Senate on Wednesday, 26-1 and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. The bill proposes several updates to the Arizona Revised Statutes concerning captive insurers. It introduces a new definition for "dormant captive insurer," which refers to a captive insurer that has ceased transacting insurance business and has no outstanding liabilities. The bill also establishes a process for dormant captive insurers to apply for a certificate of dormancy, which must be renewed every five years. Additionally, it sets forth requirements for maintaining capital and surplus, submitting annual financial reports, and the conditions under which a certificate of dormancy may be revoked or surrendered. Furthermore, the bill modifies existing definitions and requirements related to captive insurers, including changes to the terminology used for certain entities, such as "board of managers" instead of "board of directors" for limited liability companies. It also reduces the minimum capital requirement for protected cell captive insurers from $500,000 to $250,000 and specifies that at least one member of the board of managers for limited liability companies must be a resident of Arizona. Overall, these updates aim to streamline the regulatory framework for captive insurers and enhance compliance measures.
SB 1094 Business; Discrimination Prohibition; Social Criterial (Hoffman): SB 1094 passed out of the House on Thursday, 31-27; however, the bill is expected to be vetoed by Governor Hobbs. SB 1094 prohibits financial institutions, insurers, and credit reporting agencies from discriminating against individuals based on political affiliation or various social credit scores. Specifically, it would insert new sections into Title 6, Title 20, and Title 44 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, establishing that these entities cannot discriminate based on these criteria, while also allowing them to offer subjective investments or services as long as the criteria are disclosed. Additionally, the bill emphasizes that discrimination based on social credit scores is a matter of statewide concern, asserting that such practices threaten the rights of Arizona's inhabitants and the foundations of a democratic state. It also clarifies that these prohibitions do not prevent these entities from refusing business when necessary for employee safety.
prohibitions do not prevent these entities from refusing business when necessary for employee safety.
0 Comments