Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 15.
The bill amends ERISA to clarify that stop-loss policies obtained by self-insured group health plans or plan sponsors are not "health insurance coverage," and adds an express federal preemption preventing state laws from blocking group health plans' ability to insure against excess claims losses.
Progressives stress loss of state consumer protections and regulatory oversight.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly scoped substantive statutory amendment that directly alters ERISA definitions and adds a specific preemption clause to protect certain stop-loss arrangements from being treated as state-regulated health insurance.
The bill amends ERISA to clarify that stop-loss policies obtained by self-insured group health plans or plan sponsors are not "health insurance coverage," and adds an express federal preemption preventing state laws from blocking group health plans' ability to insure against excess claims losses.
Narrow, administrable change favored by employers/insurers but high federalism concerns and lack of compromise features reduce chances of enactment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly scoped substantive statutory amendment that directly alters ERISA definitions and adds a specific preemption clause to protect certain stop-loss arrangements from being treated as state-regulated health insurance.
Progressives stress loss of state consumer protections and regulatory oversight.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress loss of state consumer protections and regulatory oversight.
Likely skeptical or opposed.
The bill removes a form of state oversight by exempting stop-loss from state insurance regulation and creates broad federal preemption of state laws, raising concerns about worker protections and consumer safeguards.
Cautious support with reservations.
The policy provides clarity and federal uniformity for stop-loss use, but the preemption of state law risks unintended consequences for consumer protections and market stability.
Strongly supportive.
The bill protects employer choice to self-insure and purchase stop-loss, removes burdensome state interference, and creates consistent federal treatment encouraging market flexibility.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrable change favored by employers/insurers but high federalism concerns and lack of compromise features reduce chances of enactment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress loss of state consumer protections and regulatory oversight.
Narrow, administrable change favored by employers/insurers but high federalism concerns and lack of compromise features reduce chances of e…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly scoped substantive statutory amendment that directly alters ERISA definitions and adds a specific preemption clause to protect certain stop-loss…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.