Hawaii House Bill HCR23

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/3/26
• Refer: 3/10/26

Caption

Requesting The Auditor To Assess The Social And Financial Effects Of Mandatory Health Insurance Coverage For Prosthetic Devices And Orthotic Devices.

Impact

The resolution builds on existing provisions under Hawaii Revised Statutes, which mandates that any legislative measure requiring health insurance coverage for specific services must be preceded by a report from the auditor assessing its social and financial implications. The impact assessment aimed by HCR23 would not only evaluate the costs associated with extending insurance coverage for activity-specific prosthetics and orthotics but also explore the potential health benefits of such coverage. It seeks to highlight how comprehensive insurance could mitigate the prevalence of serious health conditions, such as obesity and diabetes, often affecting those with disabilities.

Summary

HCR23 is a House Concurrent Resolution introduced in the 2026 Regular Session of the Hawaii Legislature, aimed at assessing the social and financial effects of mandatory health insurance coverage for prosthetic and orthotic devices. The resolution recognizes the critical role of these devices in restoring mobility, independence, and functionality for individuals suffering from limb loss or mobility impairments. A significant number of Hawaii residents face barriers to participating in various activities due to restrictive insurance policies that frequently deny access to specialized prostheses, which are essential for rigorous activities such as running or swimming.

Contention

The establishment of mandatory coverage for prosthetic and orthotic devices is an acknowledgment of the need for equitable access to healthcare tools that support independence and reduce out-of-pocket expenses for individuals with disabilities. However, there may be contention regarding the financial implications this mandatory coverage might impose on insurance providers and state budgets. Some stakeholders may worry about the potential for increased insurance premiums as a result of expanded coverage, while proponents will argue that the long-term health benefits and the enhanced quality of life justify the approach.