WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3966

Direct Primary Care Agreements

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Sylleste Davis and 1 co-sponsor

Massachusetts bill strengthens taxpayer protections in property tax assessments and abatements, boosting transparency with notices, public records, and streamlined deadlines.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3966

Summary — H 3966

Note on source text: The materials provided contain two distinct legislative texts combined under Bill H 3966 — (A) a Massachusetts draft titled “An Act to reform property tax assessments and abatement processes” introduced by Rep. Jennifer Balinsky Armini (by request) and (B) a South Carolina draft adding a provision to Title 38 declaring direct primary care (DPC) agreements not to be insurance. This summary treats both subjects separately and identifies procedural status items supplied.

Purpose

  • Massachusetts portion: Increase transparency and taxpayer protections in property tax assessments and the abatement process.
  • South Carolina portion: Clarify that direct primary care agreements are not insurance and set required terms for such agreements.

Key provisions — Massachusetts (property tax assessments & abatements)

  • Reimbursement: If a board (presumably the appellate tax board) finds for an appellant, the appellee must reimburse the appellant’s entry fee for filing the petition (Section 1).
  • Numeric change: Amends chapter 58A, section 13 by replacing the figure “8” with “14” (Section 2).
  • Property card disclosure: Assessors must make property cards (including fair cash valuation) available to the public upon request and mail the property card and a written explanation of valuation to the taxpayer of record (Section 3).
  • Abatement deadline: Changes language so abatement applications are due “within 60 days following the tax bill issue date” (Section 4).
  • Abatement deadline extension: If assessors fail to provide the property card/valuation as required, the abatement deadline is extended to 60 days after the valuation/documentation are made available (Section 5).
  • Recordkeeping: Boards of assessors must record abatements (including appellate tax board decisions) on relevant property record cards, open to public inspection (Section 6).
  • Applicant notice and participation: New Section 61B requires assessors to notify abatement applicants of when the abatement will be considered and to provide opportunity to present relevant information (Section 7).

Key provisions — South Carolina (Direct Primary Care)

  • Adds Section 38-61-90 to Title 38, Chapter 61:
    • Declares a direct primary care agreement is not a contract of insurance and is not regulated by the Department of Insurance.
    • Defines “direct primary care agreement” as a written patient–provider agreement that: allows termination by either party (no penalty) with notice not to exceed 60 days; describes services for a periodic fee; specifies periodic and any third‑party fees; permits third‑party payment; prohibits additional charges for services included in the fee; and conspicuously states it is not health insurance nor satisfies any federal individual mandate.
  • Effective on gubernatorial approval.

Who is affected

  • Massachusetts: homeowners, property taxpayers, municipal assessors and boards of assessors, and the Appellate Tax Board — changes affect notice, deadlines, public access, and recordkeeping.
  • South Carolina: patients and providers using direct primary care agreements, insurers (reduced regulatory overlap), and the Department of Insurance (exempted from regulating DPC agreements).

Procedural status & timeline (as supplied)

  • Introduced: Feb 12, 2025 (read first time) and/or March 31, 2025 (documents show both dates).
  • Referred to: Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry; also noted referral to Revenue (for MA content).
  • Hearings: multiple scheduled and canceled entries (e.g., hearings scheduled 07/22/2025 and 11/07/2025; one canceled on 07/14/2025).
  • Senate concurred: 04/03/2025 (per supplied timeline).
  • Sponsor: Jennifer Balinsky Armini (primary); petition noted Jay Catelli as petitioner.

Potential impacts

  • Massachusetts: increased transparency and longer/clarified abatement timelines could help taxpayers challenge valuations but may increase administrative workload and municipal costs (mailings, record updates, reimbursements).
  • South Carolina: treating DPC agreements as non‑insurance could broaden uptake by lowering regulatory costs but removes consumer protections associated with insurance regulation; effects depend on market uptake and enforcement through other consumer‑protection law.

If you want, I can: (a) produce a redlined list of the exact statutory text changes by section, (b) estimate likely fiscal impacts for Massachusetts municipalities, or (c) draft a one‑page explainer targeted to taxpayers or to health providers.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.