Senate passes bill narrowing "made whole" rule for $5,000 MedPay reimbursements
April 20, 2021 | INSURANCE & COMMERCE - SENATE, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Arkansas
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Arkansas Senate Insurance & Commerce Committee voted to pass Senate Bill 666 after extended debate over whether insurers should be able to recoup $5,000 in MedPay benefits advanced to injured insureds.
Sponsor Sen. Ballinger said the bill targets only the $5,000 MedPay benefit and aims to restore the original legislative design for the payment and reimbursement process, arguing recent court rulings altered that balance. He told the committee the change is “pretty basic, pretty straightforward” and limited in scope.
Opponents, including attorney Rob Beard, argued the bill prioritizes insurers over consumers in low‑limit cases. Beard said the measure would “put a big company in front of a small injured person” and described a scenario in which an insured who has paid MedPay premiums could see those benefits returned to the insurer when overall liability limits are small.
Representatives of the property‑casualty industry, including Brian Waller of Shelter Insurance and trial lawyer Mel Saez (speaking for industry groups), countered that the bill restores the legislature’s intent. Saez described how the statutes that created MedPay and the reimbursement right were intended to work together and said recent judicial application of the "made whole" doctrine disrupted that scheme.
After public testimony and questions from senators, Sen. Irvin moved to pass the bill; the motion was seconded by Sen. Dizmang. Committee members requested a roll call. The clerk read names and votes; the chair announced the bill had passed with five votes.
The committee record shows extended questioning about the interaction between MedPay, attorneys’ contingency fees and the availability of other medical coverage; several senators asked whether raising minimum liability limits would affect the problem, and witnesses gave differing views. The sponsor said the bill is a targeted "bite at the apple" that does not attempt to reverse broader court-made doctrines beyond the $5,000 MedPay reimbursement issue.
The committee advanced the bill to the next stage; proponents said the measure just affects the MedPay reimbursement mechanism, and opponents said they may seek future amendments to preserve insureds’ interests.
Sponsor Sen. Ballinger said the bill targets only the $5,000 MedPay benefit and aims to restore the original legislative design for the payment and reimbursement process, arguing recent court rulings altered that balance. He told the committee the change is “pretty basic, pretty straightforward” and limited in scope.
Opponents, including attorney Rob Beard, argued the bill prioritizes insurers over consumers in low‑limit cases. Beard said the measure would “put a big company in front of a small injured person” and described a scenario in which an insured who has paid MedPay premiums could see those benefits returned to the insurer when overall liability limits are small.
Representatives of the property‑casualty industry, including Brian Waller of Shelter Insurance and trial lawyer Mel Saez (speaking for industry groups), countered that the bill restores the legislature’s intent. Saez described how the statutes that created MedPay and the reimbursement right were intended to work together and said recent judicial application of the "made whole" doctrine disrupted that scheme.
After public testimony and questions from senators, Sen. Irvin moved to pass the bill; the motion was seconded by Sen. Dizmang. Committee members requested a roll call. The clerk read names and votes; the chair announced the bill had passed with five votes.
The committee record shows extended questioning about the interaction between MedPay, attorneys’ contingency fees and the availability of other medical coverage; several senators asked whether raising minimum liability limits would affect the problem, and witnesses gave differing views. The sponsor said the bill is a targeted "bite at the apple" that does not attempt to reverse broader court-made doctrines beyond the $5,000 MedPay reimbursement issue.
The committee advanced the bill to the next stage; proponents said the measure just affects the MedPay reimbursement mechanism, and opponents said they may seek future amendments to preserve insureds’ interests.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
