The Nebraska Legislature is taking up a bill, LB 493, introduced by Sen. Karpisek. It is the same bill as Sen. Schimek introduced last year. It says:
"Notwithstanding section 44-3,131, an individual or group sickness and accident insurance policy,
certificate, or subscriber contract delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed in this state or a hospital, medical, or surgical expense-incurred policy, except for short-term major medical policies of six months or less duration and policies that provide coverage for a specified disease or other limited-benefit coverage, or a self-funded employee benefit plan to the extent not preempted by federal law shall provide coverage for single or bilateral cochlear implants for persons diagnosed with severe to profound hearing impairment."
Makes sense, right? Insurance companies should cover cochlear implants, a proven medical technology with a 30-year history. However, some of the insurance companies believe otherwise. Last year, a half dozen insurance companies in Nebraska, bankers, and the Nebraska State Chamber of Commerce testified against the bill. This year, the same thing happened. Why? Their argument is that insurance mandates equal increased cost for employers and the end-user. It is the same argument used on every insurance mandate bill regardless of its merits. Mandates = bad. They argued the market should drive insurance coverage. Sure, until you have a disparity of some insurance companies covering two cochlear implants, some covering one and some still covering none. If you are lucky enough for your employer to have chosen the right coverage, then great. If not, tough luck.
One lobbyist even suggested that parents should have had the foresight to know their child may be deaf or hard of hearing and inquire if their plan had coverage for Cochlear Implants before having the baby. This lobbyist must have not known that 90% of hearing impaired kids are born to hearing parents. And when challenged, the lobbyist responded that, "Well if you didn't know they were deaf until after they were born, then you should buy coverage then." Right.
So what happened last year to the bill? It died in committee with no vote taken. What will happen this year? We'll see.
This story brings back some old memories. A year ago this week, we were applying to get Lily's CIs covered by insurance. Months before we officially applied for “Official
Approval” we asked twice and received two emails from our insurance company saying YES they did
cover bilateral cochlear implants and there were no age minimums or
maximums. We were so relieved and thought well now we can cross that off our list as something to worry about. We were wrong.