REQUESTING THE AUDITOR TO ASSESS THE SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORS.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Dru Kanuha

Directs the State Auditor to assess the impact of mandating CGM coverage in health insurance (HB 820), with a report to lawmakers before the 2026 session on costs and access.

Reported from HLT (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 2077), recommending referral to FIN.

#auditor #continuousglucosemonitors #impactassessmentreport #mandatoryhealthinsurancecoverage

Purpose and intent

SCR 120 is a concurrent resolution asking the State Auditor to prepare an impact assessment — as required by Hawaii law (HRS §§23‑51 and 23‑52) — of a proposed mandate that health insurance policies cover Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs). The mandate to be assessed is the coverage expansion proposed in H.B. No. 820 (Regular Session of 2025). The resolution seeks information to inform legislative consideration of a statutory insurance mandate.

Note: the packet provided contains unrelated Stonewall/“Pride” language (appearing to be from another resolution). The operative text of SCR 120 (and SCR120_SD1) concerns the Auditor’s assessment of CGM coverage.

Key provisions

Directs the Auditor to conduct an impact assessment of mandating health insurance coverage for CGMs in accordance with HRS §§23‑51 and 23‑52.

Specifies that the assessment should analyze the proposal as set out in H.B. No. 820 (2025).

Requests the Auditor’s report — including findings, recommendations, and any proposed legislation — be submitted to the Legislature no later than 20 days prior to the convening of the Regular Session of 2026.

Requests certified copies of the concurrent resolution be transmitted to the Auditor, the Director of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, and the Insurance Commissioner.

What the Auditor’s report is expected to include

Under HRS §23‑52 and related guidance, the assessment typically must address social and financial effects such as:
- The specific services to be covered (here, CGMs) and extent of coverage.
- Target populations (e.g., people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, pediatric vs. adult).
- Estimated fiscal impact on insurers, premiums, and state health programs.
- Potential impacts on access to care, health outcomes, emergency utilization, and long‑term complications.
- Any utilization limits, standards of care, administrative or regulatory impacts, and implementation considerations.
- Recommended statutory language or alternative policy options, if appropriate.

Who would be affected

People living with diabetes in the State (the text cites ~108,600 adults, about 9.5% of adults).

Health insurers and third‑party administrators (for individual and group policies).

State health programs and regulators (insurance division, commerce/consumer affairs).

Rural populations noted in the text as facing unique access challenges.

Procedural / timeline status

SCR 120 (and SCR120_SD1) designates H.B. No. 820 as the bill to be assessed.

The resolution requests the Auditor’s report be delivered 20 days before the 2026 Regular Session.

Legislative actions noted: reported from HLT recommending referral to FIN (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 2077); SD1 amendments adopted and transmitted; companion measures HCR 171 and SR 101 exist.

Potential impact

The Auditor’s analysis will inform lawmakers on the likely budgetary, insurance‑market, and public‑health implications of mandating CGM coverage — including effects on premiums, insurer costs, health outcomes (e.g., fewer hypoglycemic/hyperglycemic events), and access for rural and high‑need populations. The report may also recommend legislative language or alternative approaches to achieve coverage goals.

Bill