HB655 amends KRS 304.17C-085 to tighten how limited health service benefit plans treat provider payments and participating-provider contracts. The bill narrows the statutory definition of “covered services,” forbids plans from requiring providers to accept plan-set fees for services that are not covered under the provider agreement, caps how contractual discounts can be applied, and outlaws token or nominal reimbursements.
It also declares the statute’s protections non-waivable and applies to contracts issued or renewed on or after the act’s effective date.
This matters for insurers that issue limited benefit products (dental, vision, specified indemnity plans) and for providers who participate in those networks. Compliance officers and contract negotiators must rework provider agreements and pricing practices; regulators and courts will need to interpret several undefined terms (for example, “reasonable” reimbursement and “provider’s rate”), which may drive disputes and operational changes in plan design and provider billing practices.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill clarifies that 'covered services' include services that would be reimbursed but for application of deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or frequency limits, while explicitly excluding services blocked only by an annual maximum. It forbids requiring providers to accept plan-set fees for services unless those services are identified as covered in the participating provider agreement, limits how deep contractual discounts may go, and requires reimbursements to be reasonable and not nominal.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are limited health service benefit plan issuers and their network providers — commonly dental, vision, and other narrowly tailored benefit plans. Employers that offer these plans, third-party administrators, and state insurance regulators will also face compliance and oversight implications.
Why It Matters
The measure constrains common contracting tactics that can depress provider pay (deep discounts tied to plan cost-sharing) and prevents plans from asserting coverage while paying token amounts. That changes negotiating leverage in provider networks and could lead plans to redesign benefits, alter pricing, or adjust provider network terms to stay within the new constraints.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB655 rewrites parts of KRS 304.17C-085 to set clearer rules on what counts as a covered service under limited health service benefit plans and how providers may be paid. The bill's definitional change treats services as 'covered' if reimbursement would have been provided but for the application of a deductible, copayment, coinsurance, or frequency limit; it also says services denied only because the plan has reached an annual maximum are not covered for these purposes.
That distinction matters because the statutory protections for contractual discounts and provider payment floors apply to services that meet the new covered-services test.
On contracting, the bill says a plan cannot force a participating provider to accept a fee set by the plan unless that specific service is listed as a covered service in the provider agreement. In practice this prevents plans from imposing a uniform, plan-approved fee schedule for services that the agreement itself treats as noncovered.
At the same time, the bill imposes a constraint on how providers may bill for noncovered services: a provider may not charge more for noncovered services than the provider’s own stated rate for those services, which preserves rate consistency though the language is self-referential and will require interpretation.The statute also places limits on contractual discounts and reimbursement levels. A contractual discount cannot drive a provider’s fee below the amount the plan would have paid for the same covered service if the plan had not applied an enrollee’s deductible, copayment, coinsurance, or frequency limitation.
Separately, reimbursements for covered services must be “reasonable” and may not be merely nominal amounts designed to claim coverage without meaningful payment. Finally, the bill makes these protections non-waivable and applies them to contracts issued or renewed on or after the act’s effective date, meaning new and renewed network agreements must comply even if an individual contract attempts to override the statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines 'covered services' to include services that would be reimbursed but for application of deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or frequency limits, and it expressly excludes services denied only because an annual maximum was reached.
A plan may not require a participating provider to accept a fee set or approved by the plan unless the service is designated as a covered service in the participating provider agreement.
Providers may not charge more for noncovered services under a limited health service benefit plan than the provider’s own rate for those services.
A contractual discount cannot reduce the provider’s fee below what the plan would have paid for the covered service had cost-sharing or frequency limits not applied; reimbursements must also be 'reasonable' and not mere nominal payments.
The statute’s requirements are non-waivable and apply to contracts issued or renewed on or after the act’s effective date.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Defines 'contractual discount' tied to a participating provider agreement
The amendment defines 'contractual discount' as a percentage reduction from a provider’s usual and customary rate for covered services when that reduction is required under a participating provider agreement. Practically, this ties the discount concept explicitly to the network contract rather than to an insurer’s internal pricing policy, so disputes about whether a discount applies will turn on the contract language and whether the service qualifies as a covered service under the agreement.
Narrower test for what counts as 'covered services'
This subsection creates a two-part test: services are covered if the plan’s contract provides reimbursement, or if reimbursement would be available but for application of deductible/copay/coinsurance/frequency limits. It also excludes denials that occur only because an annual maximum was reached. That exclusion gives plans a path to limit statutory coverage protections by relying on annual maximums, and it will matter when parties litigate whether a denied claim falls inside the statutory protections.
Limits plans from imposing plan-set fees for noncovered services
The bill prohibits a participating provider agreement from requiring a provider to accept a plan-determined fee for services unless those services are actually covered services under the agreement. This prevents plans from unilaterally imposing their fee schedules on providers for services the contract treats as outside the coverage commitments, preserving providers’ ability to decline plan-set fees for noncovered work.
Controls on provider charges and floor for contractual discounts
Section 3 bars providers from charging more for noncovered services than the provider’s own rate for those services; Section 4 prevents contractual discounts from pushing a provider’s fee below what the plan would have paid if deductibles/copays/coinsurance or frequency limits had not applied. Together these provisions try to strike a balance: they prevent plans from forcing deep discounts while also preventing providers from charging above their standard rates for noncovered services. The text’s practical operation, however, depends on how 'provider’s rate' and the comparator payment are established.
Reasonable reimbursement requirement and non-waiver clause
Reimbursements for covered services must be 'reasonable' and cannot be token amounts used to assert coverage. The statute also declares its requirements non-waivable and voids any contract terms that attempt to override them. Those two lines strengthen the statute’s protective intent but leave open how 'reasonable' will be measured and who enforces the non-waiver rule.
Effective timing: applies to new and renewed contracts
The act applies to contracts issued or renewed on or after its effective date. That makes the rule forward-looking: existing contracts that are not renewed remain governed by their pre-amendment terms until renewal, while new network agreements and renewals must comply immediately.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Participating providers (dental, vision, other limited-plan clinicians): The bill shields providers from being forced into plan-set fees for services the agreement does not list as covered, and it prevents discounts that would drive compensation below what a plan would have paid absent cost-sharing limits.
- Independent and small practices: By preventing plans from imposing nominal reimbursement and from demanding extreme discounts tied to cost-sharing rules, smaller providers gain leverage in negotiations and reduced risk of being paid token amounts for covered services.
- State insurance regulators: The statute gives regulators a clearer statutory standard—'reasonable' reimbursement and non-nominal payments—to apply when reviewing limited benefit plan practices.
- Plan enrollees seeking meaningful coverage: The prohibition on nominal reimbursements reduces the risk that a plan will label benefits 'covered' while paying only token amounts, improving the prospects for meaningful access to billed services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Limited health service plan issuers and insurers: Plans may lose leverage to impose deep discounts and token reimbursements, which can increase plan costs or require renegotiation of fee schedules and administrative processes.
- Employers offering limited benefit plans: Employers who sponsor or select limited plans may face higher premiums or reduced plan choices as issuers adjust pricing to reflect the new floor on reimbursements.
- Third-party administrators and network managers: Administrators will need to update contract templates, pricing models, and claims adjudication rules to ensure discounts and reimbursements comply with the new statutory limits.
- State insurance departments and courts: Regulators and adjudicators may see increased workload resolving disputes over undefined standards (e.g., 'reasonable' reimbursement, 'provider's rate'), requiring guidance, rulemaking, or litigation to interpret the law.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting provider compensation and preserving insurer flexibility to contain costs: the bill limits how plans can depress provider pay and bans token payments that undermine coverage, but those protections reduce insurer leverage and may push plans to shrink covered services, tighten limits, or raise premiums — trading provider fairness for potential reduced affordability or narrower benefits.
Several important implementation questions are left unresolved in the text. Key terms—'provider’s rate,' 'reasonable' reimbursement, and what constitutes a 'nominal' payment—are undefined; resolving them will require regulatory guidance or litigation.
The provision barring providers from charging more for noncovered services 'than the provider's rate' is circular on its face and will force courts and regulators to set an operational definition (e.g., billed charge, customary charge, or a historical rate). Without that, parties may rely on inconsistent internal metrics.
The statute also creates incentives that could produce unintended consequences. Because the annual-maximum exclusion pulls many denials outside the covered-services definition, plans might redesign benefits toward strict annual limits to avoid the statute’s protections.
Conversely, limiting contractual discounts and banning nominal reimbursements may increase plan costs, which issuers could offset by narrowing covered-service lists, tightening frequency limits, or raising premiums. Finally, the bill is silent about enforcement mechanisms and remedies—whether the Department of Insurance will enforce standards through examinations and fines or whether providers gain a private right of action is not specified in the text, creating additional uncertainty for compliance and dispute strategy.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.