Proyectos de ley › 91.ª Asamblea General
Relating to health carriers and payment of claims, audits, and standards of conduct; prior authorizations and utilization review organizations; and providing civil penalties and including applicability provisions
Presentado por Rep. Austin Harris (R), Rep. David E. Young (R)
Temas:Health careInsurance
Dónde está ahora
- Hecho: Presentado12 de febrero de 2026
- Hecho: Subcomité12 de febrero de 2026
- Hecho: Comité de la Cámara17 de febrero de 2026
- Se saltó: Lo aprueba la CámaraSigue como HF 2635
- Sigue: Comité del Senado
- Sigue: Lo aprueba el Senado
- Sigue: A gobernador(a)
- Sigue: Firmado como ley
Ahora es HF 2635 → Sigue avanzando con el número nuevo. Ir a HF 2635 ¿Qué es el embudo (funnel)?
Qué contiene
Resumen con IA Las compañías de seguros médicos tendrían que seguir plazos estrictos para pagar reclamos médicos y deben pagar a los doctores por los costos de responder a las auditorías. Esta ley también evita que las aseguradoras interfieran con las decisiones de personal de un doctor o que los castiguen por trabajar con proveedores fuera de la red. Además, las organizaciones que revisan solicitudes médicas deben seguir reglas específicas al denegar atención, y no pueden requerir autorización previa para ciertos exámenes de detección de cáncer o emergencias que pongan en peligro la vida.1
Lea la explicación oficial (en inglés)
This bill relates to health carriers and payment of claims, audits, and standards of conduct, prior authorizations, and utilization review organizations. DIVISION I —— HEALTH INSURANCE TRADE PRACTICES. Under current law, an insurer shall either accept and pay or deny a clean claim. Under the bill, an insurer shall either accept and pay or deny a clean claim no later than days after receiving an electronic claim submission, or days after receiving a claim submitted on paper. After paying a clean claim, the insurer shall not retroactively deny, reduce, or recoup payment of the claim, except if the claim submission included a misrepresentation, was fraudulent, or was a duplicate submission, and the insurer first provides written notice including evidence to the health care provider (provider) that submitted the claim of the misrepresentation, fraud, or duplicate submission. If a health carrier (carrier) conducts an audit of a clean claim, the carrier shall reimburse the provider for the reasonable administrative costs incurred by the provider to respond to the audit. “Audit” and “clean claim” are defined in the bill. A carrier that conducts an audit shall notify the provider of the initiation of the audit no later than days after selecting the clean claim for audit. A carrier shall complete an audit and issue a determination on the clean claim within days of receiving all requested documentation from the provider. A provider that submitted a clean claim subject to an audit, and that receives an adverse determination, may appeal the determination within days. A carrier shall consider an appeal and issue a final determination on the clean claim no later than days after receiving notice of the appeal. If a carrier violates the audit timeline requirements, the clean claim shall be automatically approved and promptly paid, including interest at the rate of percent per annum. The audit requirements shall not apply to a claim that is under active fraud investigation by a state or federal authority, or to a federal program where audits are mandated by federal law. Under the bill, a carrier shall not: (1) impose on a provider any financial penalty, reimbursement reduction, or administrative fee, or terminate a provider’s participation in the carrier’s network, based on the provider’s referral to or affiliation with an out-of-network provider; (2) interfere with, or participate in any capacity in, a provider’s decisions regarding staffing and referral, except as otherwise provided by law; and (3) offer, attempt to enforce, or enforce an agreement or amendment to an agreement with a provider without providing an opportunity for negotiation, and a contract term that violates the bill shall be void and unenforceable. A violation of this division of the bill by a carrier shall constitute an unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice. The carrier shall be subject to civil penalties. In any action brought by a provider against a carrier, the provider shall be entitled to recover costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees and other expenses, regardless of whether the provider prevails in such action. The commissioner shall adopt rules to administer and enforce this division.4(3). DIVISION II —— PRIOR AUTHORIZATIONS. A utilization review organization (URO) shall not deny or downgrade a request for authorization unless: (1) the decision is made by a qualified reviewer or clinical peer; and (2) the URO provides the provider requesting authorization a written statement citing the reasons for the decision, explaining the appeals process, and a written attestation as described by the bill. If a request for authorization is denied, the URO shall notify the provider within seven days and conduct a consultation as described by the bill. “Clinical peer” and “qualified reviewer” are defined in the bill. If a URO’s decision to deny or downgrade a request for authorization is appealed by the requesting provider or covered person, the appeal shall be conducted by a qualified reviewer or clinical peer who was not involved in the initial denial or downgrade. When conducting an appeal of a request for authorization, the qualified reviewer or clinical peer shall consider the known clinical aspects of the health care services (services) under review, including but not limited to medical records relevant to the medical condition and any relevant medical literature submitted by the provider. A violation of the bill’s requirements for denial or downgrade of an authorization by a URO or a carrier shall constitute an unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice. The carrier shall be subject to civil penalties. In any action brought by a provider against a carrier, the provider shall be entitled to recover costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees and other expenses, regardless of whether the provider prevails in such action. The commissioner may adopt rules to administer this division of the bill. A carrier shall not require authorization for, or impose additional utilization review requirements on, a covered person for: (1) a cancer-related screening or cancer-related preventative service recommended by the covered person’s professional based on the national comprehensive cancer network clinical practice guidelines in oncology; or (2) the diagnosis and treatment of a health condition that develops or becomes evident in a covered person while receiving treatment at an inpatient facility, and the health condition is reasonably determined by a professional to be a life threatening condition unless the covered person receives immediate assessment and treatment. This division of the bill applies to health benefit plans delivered, issued for delivery, continued, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, and requests for prior authorization for a cancer-related screening or cancer-related preventative health care service if the screening or service is recommended by the covered person’s professional, the request is made before January 1, 2027, and the request has not been finally determined on or before that date.
Por qué importa. Las compañías de seguros de salud y las organizaciones de revisión de utilización enfrentarían nuevos requisitos sobre cómo procesan las reclamaciones, realizan auditorías y manejan las solicitudes de autorización previa. Estos cambios requerirían que las aseguradoras cumplan con plazos específicos para pagar las reclamaciones sin errores y les prohibirían reducir los pagos de forma retroactiva, excepto en casos de fraude o error. Además, el proyecto de ley evitaría que las aseguradoras penalicen a los proveedores por remisiones fuera de la red y limitaría los tipos de servicios, como ciertos exámenes de detección de cáncer, que requieren autorización previa.2
Cambiado después por las enmiendas S-5067, S-5060, H-8080; vea Enmiendas.
Texto completo del proyecto (en inglés) · Qué cambió antes de aprobarse3
House subcommittee
Named February 12, 2026. On February 16, 2026 it recommended passage.
Three legislators hear a bill first and recommend what the committee should do; it’s the best time to weigh in. How to take part
Nota fiscal
Resumen con IA This bill sets new standards for health insurance companies regarding how they use artificial intelligence, conduct audits, and handle prior authorization requests. It may increase costs for the State of Iowa and Board of Regents university health plans due to new administrative requirements and changes to how medical necessity is determined. While the bill could increase revenues for the University of Iowa Health Care as a provider, the exact fiscal impact on these entities is unknown but may be significant. (en inglés)4
Lea la nota fiscal (en inglés)
Description
House File 2635 relates to health carriers standards of conduct; utilization review organizations (UROs), artificial intelligence (AI), audits, and prior authorizations; certificate of need processes; and includes applicability provisions. The Bill has four divisions, three of which have a fiscal impact and one of which does not.
The following divisions of the Bill have or may have a fiscal impact and are described in further detail below:
- Division I — Health Insurance Trade Practices
- Division II — Prior Authorizations
- Division III — Prior Authorizations — Medical Assistance Program
Division IV — Certificates of Need has no fiscal impact.
Division I — Health Insurance Trade Practices
Description
Division I of the Bill:
- Prohibits a URO from using an AI-based algorithm or system as the sole basis for the decision to deny, delay, or downgrade a prior authorization request based on medical necessity.
- Requires UROs that conduct audits of health care provider claims to meet notification and determination timeline requirements.
- Requires adverse audit determination appeals by health care providers and the final determination on appealed claims by UROs to meet timeline requirements.
- Requires UROs that violate new Iowa Code section 514F.8C(2) to approve and promptly pay the corresponding health care provider claim, with interest.
- Provides applicability requirements.
- Restricts health carriers from taking certain punitive actions against a provider based on the provider’s referral to, or affiliation with, an out-of-network provider.
- Authorizes the Commissioner of Insurance to adopt administrative rules to administer this Division.
Background
Prior authorization is defined in Iowa Code section 514F.8 as a determination by a URO that a specific health care service proposed by a health care provider for a covered person is medically necessary or medically appropriate. The determination must be made prior to the provision of the health care service to the covered person. If applicable, a covered person or a health care provider must notify the URO prior to receiving or providing a specific health care service.
Figure 1 shows insurance claim spend by plan. The State of Iowa costs (2025) were provided by Wellmark, and the Board of Regents (BOR) universities’ costs (2024) were provided by the BOR.
Figure 1 — Insurance Spend by Plan
Insurance Plan Annual Spend
State University of Iowa $ 360,800,000 Iowa State University 138,500,000 University of Northern Iowa 27,100,000 University Total $ 526,400,000 State of Iowa 395,700,000 Total $ 922,100,000 Division I is estimated to affect approximately 25.6% of the population (829,000 people). This includes individual coverage, fully insured small and large employer groups, self-insured public employees, and the State of Iowa plan.
Of the individuals not covered by the mandate, approximately 42.9% are covered by government-sponsored health insurance; 26.7% are covered by employer coverage, which is governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); and the remaining 4.8% are uninsured. Additional details are presented in Figure 2. Figure 2 — Population Covered by Insurance Plans Regulated by Iowa Law
Type of Coverage Iowa Population
Percent of
Population
Total Population 2024 3,241,488 100.0%
Included in Mandate
Individual Coverage 143,597 4.4% Fully Insured Small Employer Group 129,342 4.0% Fully Insured Large Employer Group 286,029 8.8% Self-Insured Public Employees* 215,000 6.6% State of Iowa Plan 55,000 1.7% Total 828,968 25.6%
Not Included in Mandate
Employer (self-insured + other types not listed) 864,752 26.7% Uninsured 156,600 4.8% Other Public (Military, Tricare, Veterans Affairs) 24,100 0.7% Medicare 685,671 21.2% Medicaid + Children’s Health Insurance Plan 681,397 21.0% Total 2,412,520 74.4% *Represents total population 2020. Sources: Iowa Insurance Division and Wellmark
Assumptions
- It is unknown how administrative costs will be impacted, but the impact may be significant.
- According to Wellmark, restricting a health carrier’s ability to impose punitive financial incentives on health care providers may increase costs to the State of Iowa plan and the BOR universities’ plans. It is unknown how this may impact the University of Iowa Health Care (UIHC) as a provider.
Fiscal Impact
Division I of the Bill may increase costs to the State of Iowa and the BOR universities’ health plans incurred in responding to audits of clean claims; any potential fiscal impact is unknown but may be significant.
Division II — Prior Authorizations
Description
Division II of the Bill relates to prior authorization requirements and does the following:
- Requires health care providers, beginning July 1, 2027, to submit requests for prior authorization to a health carrier electronically and to comply with federal interoperability regulations.
- Provides the following requirements for a URO to deny or downgrade a request for prior authorization:
- The decision must be made by a qualified reviewer or a clinical peer, who must attest to the reviewer’s or peer’s qualifications, excluding any personal identifiable information.
- The health care provider must be given a statement signed by the qualified reviewer or clinical peer who made the decision, and the statement must include the specific reasons for the denial or downgrade.
- The URO’s appeal process must be disclosed to the health care provider and the covered person.
- Requires a URO to conduct a consultation with a qualified reviewer or clinical peer within seven business days, if requested by a health care provider.
- Restricts a qualified reviewer or clinical peer who was involved in an original denial or downgrade from conducting the pursuing appeal.
- Prohibits prior authorization and additional utilization review requirements by a health carrier for the following:
- Cancer-related screenings that are recommended by the covered person’s health care professional and meet other requirements of the Bill.
- Diagnosis and treatment of an emergency medical condition that develops or becomes evident while the covered person is receiving inpatient care and meets other requirements of the Bill, including that the condition is reasonably determined by a health care professional to be life-threatening without immediate treatment.
- Authorizes the Commissioner of Insurance to adopt administrative rules to administer this Division.
- Establishes applicability.
- Establishes enforcement mechanisms permitting the Commissioner of Insurance to suspend a URO’s authority to conduct utilization review upon finding a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the sections of Iowa Code specified in the Bill. Includes remedies authorized in Iowa Code chapters 505 and 507B.
Background
Civil penalties collected pursuant to Iowa Code chapters 505 and 507B are deposited into the General Fund (60.0%) and the Commerce Revolving Fund (CMRF) (40.0%).
Division II is estimated to affect approximately 25.6% of the population (829,000 people). Additional details are presented in Figure 2.
Assumptions
- Requiring a qualified reviewer or a clinical peer to make denial or downgrade determinations may increase administrative costs for health carriers.
- According to Wellmark, some of these specialized positions may not currently be on staff, and there may be significant costs to hire or contract this work to individuals with the same qualifications and experience as the health care professional or physician requesting prior authorization. Potential costs are unknown but may be significant.
- According to Wellmark, any reduction in prior authorization utilization is accompanied by a sentinel effect, which increases utilization and costs to a health insurance plan.
- Additional consultation pursuant to the Bill may increase administrative costs by an unknown amount, which may be significant.
- According to Wellmark, prohibiting prior authorization and additional utilization requirements for cancer-related screenings and for the diagnosis and treatment of emergency medical conditions, as restricted by the Bill, is not expected to have a significant impact on costs to the State of Iowa plan. It is unknown whether there will be any impact on costs to the other State-funded plans.
- According to the BOR, any increase in the utilization of services may increase revenues or decrease costs to the UIHC as a provider, but any such impact cannot be quantified at this time.
Fiscal Impact
Division II of the Bill may increase administrative costs to the State of Iowa and the BOR universities’ health plans by requiring denial and downgrade determinations for prior authorization requests to be performed by qualified reviewers and clinical peers. Administrative costs for each of the plans may also be increased in the appeal and consultation process outlined in Division II. Additionally, Division II may increase costs to the BOR universities’ health plans by prohibiting prior authorization and additional utilization requirements for specific screenings, diagnoses, and treatments that meet the requirements of the Bill. Finally, Division II may increase revenues to the UIHC as a provider if increased utilization of services occurs. Any potential fiscal impact is unknown but may be significant.
Division III — Prior Authorizations — Medical Assistance Program
Description
Division III of the Bill relates to prior authorization requirements and does the following:
- Prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and managed care organizations (MCOs) from requiring prior authorization or additional utilization review requirements for Medicaid and Healthy and Well Kids in Iowa (Hawki) recipients for the following:
- Cancer-related screenings that are recommended by the recipient’s health care provider and meet other requirements of the Bill.
- Diagnosis and treatment of an emergency medical condition that develops or becomes evident while the recipient is receiving inpatient care and meets other requirements of the Bill, including that the condition is reasonably determined by a provider to be life-threatening without immediate treatment.
- Requires health care providers, beginning July 1, 2027, to submit requests for prior authorization to an MCO electronically and to comply with federal interoperability regulations.
- Division III of the Bill is applicable to all contracts between the HHS and an MCO that are delivered, issued for delivery, continued, extended, or renewed beginning January 1, 2027, and to requests for prior authorization made beginning January 1, 2027.
- Authorizes the HHS to adopt administrative rules to administer this Division.
Background
Division III applies to Medicaid and Hawki and is estimated to affect approximately 21.0% of the population (681,000 people). Additional details are presented in Figure 2.
Assumptions and Fiscal Impact
Division III of the Bill may increase costs for Medicaid reimbursements by prohibiting prior authorization and additional utilization requirements for specific screenings, diagnoses, and treatments that meet the requirements of the Bill. Any potential fiscal impact is indeterminable.
Fiscal Impact Summary
Any potential fiscal impact of HF 2635 to the State is unknown, but may be significant. The Bill may increase revenues to the UIHC. Divisions I and II of House File 2635 may increase costs to the State of Iowa and the BOR universities’ plans. Division III may increase costs to the HHS. Division IV is estimated to have no fiscal impact.
Sources
- Board of Regents
- Department of Administrative Services
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Insurance and Financial Services, Iowa Insurance Division
- Wellmark
- Legislative Services Agency analysis
- Final Fiscal Note — Health Insurance and Managed Care, Payment Practices · 31 de marzo de 2026
- Prior Authorizations, Cancer Screenings, Reviews, and Timelines · 4 de marzo de 2026
- Health Insurance and Managed Care, Payment Practices · 3 de marzo de 2026
Lo que cambia del Código de Iowa (Iowa Code)
Cabildeo
25 a favor · 6 en contra · 15 indecisos · Quiénes →
Family tree
Study bill