Bill
H 4340
Massachusetts bill requires insurers and public programs to pay Medical Nutrition Therapy via telehealth at the same rate as in-person care, expanding access.
Note on source materials
- The materials provided include two different bills with conflicting subject matter under the same bill number (H 4340). One is a Massachusetts House draft titled “An Act relative to telehealth parity for nutrition counseling” (full text of multiple statutory edits). The other is a short South Carolina draft amending early-voting law to include presidential preference primaries. The legislative action dates also appear to mix both drafts. Below I summarize both items and flag the discrepancy so you can confirm which version you want summarized or tracked.
Summary A — Massachusetts draft: “An Act relative to telehealth parity for nutrition counseling”
Purpose and intent
- Establish payment parity for Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) delivered via telehealth (both interactive audio‑video and audio‑only telephone) so providers are paid no less than for equivalent in‑person services. It defines “Medical Nutrition Therapy” and extends parity across multiple Massachusetts insurance and benefit statutes.
Key provisions and statutory changes
- Adds a definition of “Medical Nutrition Therapy” to multiple statutes: chapter 32A §30; chapter 118E §79; chapter 175 §47MM; chapter 176A §38; chapter 176B §25. Definition: nutrition care services, including nutrition counseling, provided by a licensed dietitian/nutritionist as defined in chapter 112 §201, aimed at prevention, delay, management, or treatment of disease/condition.
- Inserts/rewrites parallel subsections (g) in each statute to require insurers, the Group Insurance Commission (GIC), the Division (Medicaid/CHIP), hospital service corporations, medical service corporations, and other listed payers to ensure in‑network payment rates for:
- behavioral health services, and
- medical nutrition therapy
delivered via interactive audio‑video technology and audio‑only telephone are no less than rates for the same service delivered in person.
- The parity requirement is tied to providers covered under subclause (i) of clause (4) of the second sentence of subsection (a) of section 6 of chapter 176O (reference to statutory coverage mandates).
Who is affected
- Licensed dietitians/nutritionists providing MNT in Massachusetts.
- Insurers, hospital service corporations, medical service corporations, employers’ health and welfare funds, the Group Insurance Commission, and the Medicaid/CHIP programs.
- Patients who receive nutrition counseling or MNT — particularly those who rely on telehealth or have difficulty accessing in‑person care.
- Behavioral health providers are also covered by the parity language (already present in some statutes).
Potential impact
- Expands access to MNT via telehealth and may increase telehealth utilization for nutrition counseling.
- Likely increases payment obligations for payers when telehealth MNT is billed at parity with in‑person rates — potential fiscal impact on insurers and public payers; could increase provider reimbursement and encourage telehealth service availability.
- Reinforces audio‑only telephonic services as covered at parity, which benefits patients with limited broadband or video capability.
Procedural/timeline (from provided data)
- Text shows filing and committee reports dated July 31, 2025 (filed 7/25/2025). Reported from the committee on Financial Services and referred to Health Care Financing per the document.
Summary B — South Carolina draft: amendment to early voting law (presidential preference primaries)
Purpose and intent
- Remove the statutory exclusion that prevented the early‑voting provisions in Section 7‑13‑25 from applying to presidential preference primaries (those held under Section 7‑11‑20), thereby extending early‑voting rules to those primaries.
Key provisions
- Amends S.C. Code § 7‑13‑25(L) to delete the phrase stating “The provisions of this section do not apply to presidential preference primaries held pursuant to Section 7‑11‑20.” In effect, presidential preference primaries would now be subject to the early‑voting rules in § 7‑13‑25.
- Effective date: the act “takes effect upon approval by the Governor.”
Who is affected
- South Carolina primary voters, especially voters participating in presidential preference primaries.
- County election officials and administrators responsible for establishing and staffing early voting locations and managing associated logistics.
- Political campaigns, parties, and election stakeholders who plan turnout strategies for presidential preference primaries.
Potential impact
- Expands voting access by enabling early voting for presidential preference primaries (previously excluded).
- May require election administrators to extend early‑voting schedules and resources to additional primary elections — potential operational and budgetary implications for counties and the State Election Commission.
- Could influence turnout patterns and logistical planning for presidential nomination contests.
Procedural/timeline (from provided data)
- The SC draft shows an introduction date of April 9, 2025, with immediate referral to the Judiciary Committee and a provision that the bill becomes effective upon the Governor’s approval.
Recommendation / Next step
- Confirm which jurisdiction/version you intend to track or analyze (Massachusetts telehealth parity bill vs. South Carolina early‑voting amendment). The two texts are distinct and have different policy, fiscal, and stakeholder implications. I can produce a focused deeper analysis (fiscal estimate, affected state programs, implementation steps, or legislative strategy) once you confirm which bill to prioritize.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
