SB1644 adds a new section to Missouri’s insurance code that forbids providers from offering, entering into, or renewing network contracts containing anti‑steering, anti‑tiering, gag, or most‑favored‑nation (MFN) clauses. Any such clause in an existing contract is declared void while the rest of the contract stays in force.
The bill also creates a specific good‑faith duty for health benefit plan issuers that steer enrollees to particular providers or that implement or change tiered networks: when they do so, they must act for the benefit of the enrollee or policyholder. The change reallocates bargaining leverage, increases the legal exposure around pricing disclosures, and raises practical questions about enforcement and interaction with ERISA‑covered plans.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB1644 defines four types of restrictive contract clauses (anti‑steering, anti‑tiering, gag, most‑favored‑nation) and forbids providers from offering, entering, or amending contracts to include them. It declares any such clause void and leaves the remainder of the contract intact.
Who It Affects
The rule applies to providers and ‘‘general contracting entities’’ that contract for delivery and payment of care; the bill excludes providers only when they act as health benefit plans. Health benefit plan issuers are subject to a new good‑faith duty when they steer enrollees or create/modify tiered plans.
Why It Matters
By removing contractual restraints that limited steering, tiering, and disclosure, the bill shifts negotiating leverage away from providers that used these clauses and toward payers and plan sponsors. The change can increase price transparency but also triggers legal and implementation questions, including how it interacts with self‑funded ERISA plans and confidentiality practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core of SB1644 is definitional precision followed by a blunt prohibition. The bill first defines four categories of clauses: anti‑steering (clauses stopping a payer from encouraging enrollees to choose competing providers), anti‑tiering (clauses limiting creation or modification of tiers or requiring a provider’s entire practice be placed in a single tier), gag clauses (clauses that bar disclosure of price/quality or out‑of‑pocket cost information), and MFN clauses (clauses that lock in rate parity or require disclosure of other contracts’ rates).
Those definitions frame what the statute targets and how courts will interpret challenged contract language.
Next, the statute bars providers from offering, entering into, or amending contracts to include any of those four clause types. If a contract contains such a clause, that clause is void and unenforceable, while the rest of the contract remains effective.
The effect is not to unwind entire agreements but to strip away the specific restraints the legislature finds harmful.Finally, SB1644 imposes a substantive duty on health benefit plan issuers: if an issuer steers enrollees to particular providers (including by offering incentives) or implements or changes tiered network structures, the issuer must do so in good faith for the benefit of the enrollee or policyholder. The bill does not define remedies for breaches of that duty, nor does it create an express enforcement mechanism or civil‑penalty scheme within the text.Taken together, these elements change the bargaining and disclosure landscape.
Payers and plan sponsors gain explicit freedom to design incentives and tiers and to disclose price and quality information, while providers lose specific contractual tools previously used to limit competition or protect negotiated rates. How the marketplace and courts respond will depend on follow‑on litigation, regulator guidance, and interactions with federal law governing employer plans.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines ‘‘general contracting entity’’ broadly as any party that contracts directly with a provider to deliver and pay for care, but it explicitly excludes a provider or facility from that term unless the provider is acting as a health benefit plan.
SB1644 prohibits three distinct acts: offering a contract that contains the banned clauses, entering a contract that contains them, and amending or renewing a prior contract so that it adds or retains those clauses.
A ‘‘gag clause’’ under the statute specifically covers restrictions on disclosing allowed amounts, negotiated rates or discounts, fees for services, claim‑related financial obligations, and out‑of‑pocket costs to enrollees and defined third parties.
If a prohibited clause exists in a network contract, the clause is void and unenforceable but the remainder of the contract survives and remains enforceable—a surgical invalidation rather than complete contract rescission.
The bill imposes a good‑faith duty on health benefit plan issuers that steer enrollees or introduce/modify tiered plans, requiring that such conduct be undertaken for the benefit of the enrollee or policyholder; the statute does not specify a remedy for violating that duty.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions of the four banned clause types and core terms
This subsection offers granular definitions for anti‑steering, anti‑tiering, gag, and most‑favored‑nation clauses, plus definitions for ‘‘general contracting entity,’’ ‘‘provider,’’ ‘‘health benefit plan,’’ and related terms. Practically, those definitions set the statute’s reach: for example, the gag clause language explicitly mentions disclosure of negotiated rates and allowed amounts to enrollees, treating providers, plan sponsors, and governmental entities, narrowing room for contractual confidentiality on price.
Three prohibitions on provider conduct
This provision makes it unlawful for a provider to (1) offer a written contract containing the banned clauses to a general contracting entity, (2) enter into such a contract, or (3) amend/renew an existing contract so it adds or keeps those clauses. The text targets provider conduct at three lifecycle points of contracting to prevent workarounds (offer language, execution, and later contract revisions).
Voidness of prohibited clauses and survival of the rest of the contract
The statute declares any anti‑steering, anti‑tiering, gag, or MFN provision void and unenforceable, but it preserves enforceability of the contract’s remaining provisions. That creates a limited severability effect: courts will excise the specific prohibited language rather than nullify entire agreements, reducing collateral disruption to network relationships while removing the restraint.
Good‑faith duty for issuers who steer or tier
This short clause requires health benefit plan issuers who encourage enrollees to use particular providers (including through incentives) or who introduce/modify tiered networks to do so in good faith for the benefit of enrollees or policyholders. The provision imposes a behavioral standard on payers but does not define ‘‘good faith,’’ prescribe monitoring or reporting, or create an express enforcement mechanism within the statute itself.
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
- Health benefit plan issuers and plan sponsors — They gain clearer authority to design incentives, steer enrollees, and create tiered networks without facing contractual restraints that previously limited those practices.
- Consumers/enrollees who shop for care — Removing gag clauses expands the parties allowed to receive price and out‑of‑pocket information, improving the availability of cost and quality data for decision‑making.
- Smaller or competing providers — Independent practices and non‑dominant hospitals can face fewer contractual restrictions (for example, no clause forcing them into a single tier), which may lower barriers to competing for network placements.
Who Bears the Cost
- Large provider systems and hospitals that relied on MFN or gag clauses — They lose leverage that preserved rate parity and confidentiality, potentially exposing them to more price competition and disclosure of negotiated rates.
- Providers generally — They must revise template contracts, renegotiate terms, and monitor renewals to ensure no prohibited language is present, creating administrative and legal compliance costs.
- State regulators and courts — Because the bill voids clauses but does not create a clear enforcement regime or remedies, regulators and the judiciary may see new disputes over what satisfies the good‑faith duty and whether particular contract terms are functionally equivalent to banned clauses.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: promoting competition, consumer price transparency, and payer flexibility versus preserving providers’ negotiated confidentiality and bargaining leverage that can stabilize rates and network participation; the statute solves for transparency and steering freedom but leaves enforcement, ERISA preemption, and trade‑secret protections unresolved, forcing courts and regulators to balance competing commercial and consumer interests.
SB1644 restructures contractual boundaries but leaves several consequential implementation and enforcement questions unanswered. Most prominently, the statute voids clauses without specifying penalties, an administrative enforcement pathway, or a private right of action tied to damages; that gap makes courts the likeliest forum to interpret prohibited language, sever agreements, and develop remedies—likely producing case law before regulators issue guidance.
The bill’s surgical invalidation approach reduces the odds of wholesale contract disruption but increases litigation over whether particular provisions are substantively equivalent to the banned categories.
Federal preemption is a practical constraint: state statutes generally cannot regulate self‑funded ERISA plans, so the law’s reach will be limited where employer plan contracts fall under federal jurisdiction. In addition, the removal of gag clauses raises confidentiality and trade‑secret tensions: while the bill permits disclosure of negotiated rates and allowed amounts to specified parties, it does not create a safe harbor for providers that disclose or for payers that publish price information, nor does it resolve competing nondisclosure obligations arising from other contract provisions or state/federal law.
Finally, the statutory good‑faith obligation is undeveloped—‘‘good faith’’ is undefined, and the legislature did not specify monitoring, reporting, or sanctions—so practical application will depend on judicial gloss or later regulatory rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.