The bill tasks the Hilltop Institute at UMBC with a formal feasibility study of a statewide single‑payer universal health care program and establishes an advisory commission to shape the Institute’s final recommendations. It sets reporting milestones and conditions the study on secured external funding, then sunsets the statute after the reporting is complete.
For policy professionals, the measure is primarily a technical and analytic step: it mandates benefit design analysis (including reproductive and behavioral health), financing scenarios, integration with existing federal and state programs, and transition planning — while creating a multi‑sector advisory body with delayed appointment authority to inform the final report.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires a university institute to produce a feasibility study for a statewide single‑payer model, specifying the benefit package to evaluate, cost and financing projections, and transition recommendations; establishes an advisory commission to help craft the final report.
Who It Affects
Research and public agencies supplying data, health care providers and associations whose payment and administrative models would be analyzed, advocacy groups representing uninsured or underserved populations, and entities that might fund the study (grants or donations).
Why It Matters
A rigorous feasibility study lays out technical options — benefits, costs, legal constraints, and transition pathways — that would be the basis for any future legislative drafting or federal waiver requests, making this bill a pivotal early step toward systemic reform.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute creates a bounded, evidence‑driven workstream rather than an immediate policy change. The Hilltop Institute must evaluate a single‑payer model that would deliver a publicly financed benefit package to every Maryland resident, without regard to income, assets, immigration or citizenship status, and benchmark that package to at least the ten essential health benefits in the Affordable Care Act, Maryland Health Connection requirements, Medicaid, and Medicare.
The study is tasked with modeling not only the scope of covered services — including primary, preventive, chronic, acute, reproductive, hospital, and behavioral health care — but also optional additions such as dental, vision, hearing, and long‑term care.
The Institute’s analytic remit is detailed: it must review other states’ single‑payer efforts, produce cost and administrative projections, identify financing mechanisms and amounts, and assess collateral costs. The study must also examine practical integration questions: how to fold Maryland Medical Assistance, Medicare, private insurance, and public‑sector employee plans into a unified system; how to transition the state’s existing AHEAD payment reform model to a single‑payer approach; and how to handle workforce displacement during system change.
The Institute will staff and coordinate with an advisory commission composed of state officials, labor representatives, county and municipal appointees, business and health‑sector stakeholders, and advocates for populations like the unhoused, immigrants, and formerly incarcerated individuals.There are process constraints built into the bill. The Institute cannot begin the study unless it secures sufficient external funding (grants or private donations) and notifies the Legislative Services within five days; the statute specifies interim and final report deadlines (June 1, 2028 and June 1, 2029).
Commission appointments are not to be made before January 1, 2028, and the law itself includes an automatic sunset after December 31, 2029 unless the funding trigger is met earlier. Those timing and funding conditions will shape how quickly the technical work proceeds and how comprehensive the resulting models and recommendations can be.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The study must evaluate a benefit package at minimum equivalent to the ACA’s 10 essential health benefits and the benefits covered by Maryland Health Connection plans, plus required Medicaid and Medicare benefits.
Analyses must include cost projections, financing mechanisms, administrative collateral costs, and options to contain costs by reducing administrative expenses.
The advisory commission includes state leaders, cabinet designees, labor representatives, county and municipal appointees, business and clinical representatives, and advocates for unhoused people, immigrants, and the formerly incarcerated.
The Hilltop Institute may only start the work after securing sufficient outside funding and notifying the Department of Legislative Services; interim and final reports are due June 1, 2028 and June 1, 2029, respectively.
The statute is time‑limited: it takes effect only if funding is confirmed by Dec 31, 2026 and otherwise becomes null and void; the act sunsets automatically at the end of 2029.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope framing
This short section defines the terms used throughout the new subtitle, specifically naming the Hilltop Institute and the Advisory Commission on Universal Health Care. In practice, the definitions narrow the statute’s reach to a single research center as the analytic lead and a single formal advisory body for stakeholder input, which concentrates responsibility and accountability for the study.
Study mandate and analytic requirements
This is the technical core: it specifies what the feasibility study must cover. The Institute must model a single‑payer system providing comprehensive, publicly financed coverage regardless of residency or immigration status, and list the types of services to evaluate (primary through behavioral health and reproductive care, including abortion services as permitted by state law). The section requires the Institute to review other states’ approaches, produce detailed cost and financing projections, assess administrative and collateral costs, examine equity and access outcomes, and recommend whether to include dental, vision, hearing, and long‑term care. These explicit analytic tasks set the study’s boundaries and deliverables, which is critical for determining the modeling methods and data needs the Institute will pursue.
Advisory commission composition and appointment rules
The statute creates a multi‑sector commission to help shape the final recommendations. Membership mixes legislative appointees, executive branch designees, labor and business representatives, county and municipal delegates, clinical association representatives, and advocates focused on homelessness, uninsured populations, formerly incarcerated people, and immigrants. Appointments cannot occur before January 1, 2028, and the governor — in consultation with legislative leaders — will name the chair. The Institute staffs the commission and members receive travel reimbursement but no compensation. Delaying appointments until 2028 concentrates stakeholder engagement toward the latter part of the study period.
Reporting deadlines, funding contingency, and sunset
This section imposes two formal milestones: an interim report to the commission by June 1, 2028 and a joint final report by June 1, 2029 to the governor and key legislative committees. Crucially, the statute is contingent on the Institute receiving sufficient external funding; it must notify Legislative Services within five days after funding is secured. If the funding trigger is not met by Dec 31, 2026, the study authority never takes effect. The act itself is time‑limited and expires at the end of 2029, which confines the study to a finite window and limits open‑ended program development under this law.
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
- Uninsured and underinsured individuals — the study explicitly models a benefit package that would remove eligibility and immigration status barriers, potentially informing policies that expand coverage to these groups.
- Low‑income and marginalized communities — the bill requires analysis of equity, access, and disparity reduction, which could surface targeted interventions for urban and rural areas with limited services.
- Public health planners and policymakers — a rigorously scoped feasibility study delivers actionable cost estimates, financing options, and transition pathways that legislators and regulators can use for future lawmaking or waiver applications.
- Community clinics and safety‑net providers — by being included in stakeholder representation and analytic scenarios, these providers gain an opportunity to influence payment and administrative simplification proposals that could reduce uncompensated care.
Who Bears the Cost
- Study funders (grantors or private donors) — the Institute may not proceed without external funding, shifting initial financial responsibility away from the state budget and onto third‑party funders.
- State executive agencies and staff — cabinet designees and the Institute must commit personnel time and data to support the study and commission, creating opportunity costs for other projects.
- Hospitals and provider groups (potentially) — while the bill is analytic, its scenarios could recommend payment reforms and rate changes that materially affect provider revenues if adopted later.
- Employers and taxpayers (in future scenarios) — financing analyses will identify possible revenue mechanisms (e.g., taxes or assessments) that, if implemented, would impose new fiscal burdens on businesses or residents.
- Labor and health‑sector workers — the study must plan for workforce transitions and potentially displaced workers, signaling costs associated with retraining, redeployment, or compensation changes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between designing an expansive, equitable benefit package that removes eligibility and immigration barriers and the fiscal, legal, and operational realities of funding and implementing a statewide single‑payer system; solving for one side — maximum inclusion and coverage — makes the other side — affordability, legal feasibility, and smooth provider transition — harder to achieve.
The bill is carefully procedural: it demands technical work but leaves the most consequential choices — benefit breadth, who pays, and how federal programs are folded in — unresolved until after the study. That creates two implementation challenges.
First, the funding contingency places control of whether the study happens in the hands of external funders; if funding is delayed or partial, modeling complexity and stakeholder engagement will shrink. Second, integrating federal entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid) and overcoming ERISA and other federal preemption issues are substantial legal and operational hurdles that the statute does not resolve but requires the Institute to analyze; the path from feasibility study to a legally viable single‑payer program could depend on federal waivers or statutory changes beyond Maryland’s control.
There are also methodological and political trade‑offs baked into the mandate. The study must be comprehensive in scope but will operate on a tight timeline and in a fixed statutory window, which could push the Institute toward high‑level scenarios rather than granular implementation plans.
Inclusion of sensitive service areas — notably reproductive and abortion care ‘to the extent available under state law’ — and explicit coverage for noncitizens raises fiscal and legal policy questions that will shape stakeholder alignment. Finally, delaying commission appointments until 2028 concentrates stakeholder input late in the process, limiting early course‑corrections and potentially weakening the study’s access to frontline operational data.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.