House · Passed · 2025-2026 Regular Session
HB 197: Insurance; health care provider to respond to a private review agent or utility review entity's attempt to discuss the patient's care; detail the effort
Last action January 1, 2026 · Effective Date
House Bill 197 spells out how hard health insurers' review agents must try to reach a patient's doctor before denying care, and requires insurers to offer reduced prior authorization burdens for high-performing providers.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the bill and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Enrolled version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
Under current Georgia law, before a private review agent or utilization review entity (the insurance side reviewers who decide whether treatment is medically necessary) can deny a claim, they must make an effort to discuss the case with the patient's treating provider. This bill spells out what that effort must actually look like: contacting the provider or their designee directly, using a callback phone system, or offering a public website where the provider can schedule a later call if no reviewer is available at the time. The bill also creates a new requirement for insurers that use prior authorization (advance approval before insurance will cover a treatment). Insurers must set up a program that reduces prior authorization requirements for providers who show strong performance and evidence based practices. Insurers choose their own criteria but must file a description of the program, its criteria, covered services, and participating provider counts with the state Department of Insurance every year starting no later than July 1, 2026. The law takes effect January 1, 2026, and applies to policies issued or renewed on or after that date.
What the bill does
- Requires reviewers questioning medical necessity to make specific documented efforts to reach the treating provider, including direct contact, a callback phone system, or a scheduling website.
- Bars an adverse coverage determination until that contact effort has been made during normal working hours.
- Requires health insurers using prior authorization to create a program that reduces those requirements for providers who perform well and follow evidence based medicine.
- Lets each insurer set its own criteria for which providers and services qualify for reduced prior authorization.
- Requires insurers to file an annual report on the program with the Department of Insurance starting no later than July 1, 2026, describing criteria, covered services, and participation numbers.
- Sets the law's effective date as January 1, 2026, applying to policies issued or renewed on or after that date.
Who it affects
Doctors and other treating health care providers whose patients face insurance reviews, private review agents and utilization review entities that conduct medical necessity reviews, health insurers that use prior authorization, and the Georgia Department of Insurance, which will collect and oversee the new annual filings.
Why it matters
Patients and doctors would get a clearer, more reliable process for insurers to consult a treating provider before denying care, potentially reducing denials made without real physician input. Providers with strong track records could also face fewer prior authorization hurdles, which may speed up approval for some treatments.
Key provisions
- Section 1 revises O.C.G.A. § 33-46-6(a)(5) to require reviewers to use direct contact, a callback telecommunications system, or a scheduling website to reach the treating provider before an adverse determination.
- Section 2 adds a new Code Section 33-46-20.1 requiring insurers using prior authorization to implement a program reducing those requirements for providers based on performance and evidence based practice.
- Subsection (b) lets insurers set their own participation criteria but requires a filing to the Department of Insurance describing the program, criteria, covered services, and participant counts.
- Subsection (c) sets a July 1, 2026 deadline for the first annual filing, with future filings governed by Commissioner rules and regulations.
- Section 3 sets the effective date as January 1, 2026, applying to policies or contracts issued, delivered, or renewed on or after that date.
From the bill
“Such effort shall include contacting the treating provider or his or her designee, implementing a callback telecommunications system, or the use of a public website whereby such provider or designee may elect to receive a scheduled communication at a later time in the event that a clinical peer is not available.”
“Each insurer that utilizes prior authorization requirements shall implement and maintain a program that allows for the selective application of reductions in prior authorization requirements based on the stratification of healthcare providers' performance and adherence to evidence based medicine.”
Status timeline
- Effective Date
- Act 303
- House Date Signed by Governor (House)
- House Sent to Governor (House)
- House Agreed Senate Amend or Sub (House)
- Senate Passed/Adopted By Substitute (Senate)
- Senate Third Read (Senate)
- Senate Taken from Table (Senate)
Show full history (20 actions)
- Senate Tabled (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (Senate)
- Senate Recommitted (Senate)
- Senate Read Second Time (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported (Senate)
- Senate Read and Referred (Senate)
- House Passed/Adopted (House)
- House Third Readers (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- House Hopper (House)
Sponsors
- Lee Hawkins (R, HD-27)
- Mark Newton (R, HD-127)
- Trey Kelley (R, HD-16)
- Deborah Silcox (R, HD-53)
- Sharon Cooper (R, HD-45)
- Michelle Au (D, HD-50)
- Kay Kirkpatrick (R, SD-32)
Votes
- House voteMarch 4, 2025
174 yea, 0 nay (4 not voting, 2 excused)
- Senate voteApril 2, 2025
53 yea, 0 nay (1 not voting, 2 excused)
- House voteApril 4, 2025
162 yea, 0 nay (6 not voting, 12 excused)
Topics
- health insurance
- prior authorization
- medical necessity reviews
- insurance regulation
- health care providers