Working Families Health Access Act of 1995 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose an excise tax on a health insurance policy issuer (or, in the case of a self-insured plan, the sponsor) equal to a specified percentage of premiums received (or, in the case of a self-insured plan, of expenditures) under the policy or plan during the calendar year for failure to meet the standards specified in this Act. Prohibits the establishment or imposition by group health plans or carriers offering health insurance coverage in connection with a plan, or for individuals with qualifying previous coverage, of eligibility, continuation, enrollment, or contribution requirements based on factors directly related to health status, medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, disability, or evidence of insurability. Requires the use of preexisting condition limitations or exclusions to be limited to a three-month period before the date of enrollment during which the condition was diagnosed or treated. Limits the period of limitation or exclusion relating to treatment of the condition to no more than six months and credits periods of qualifying previous coverage to reduce that period. Makes exceptions to the limitation or exclusion period for treatment related to pregnancy, newborns, and adopted children. Prohibits a carrier from refusing to renew health insurance coverage except for specified reasons, including premium nonpayment or fraud by the insured. Details allowable nondiscriminatory conditions for discontinuation of coverage, geographic limitations, and minimum participation requirements. Allows States to establish, implement, or continue in effect health insurance coverage standards that are at least as stringent as those established by this Act. Qualifies, for purposes of the provisions imposing an excise tax for the failure of group health plans to meet continuation coverage requirements, coverage that meets certain general availability and preexisting condition limitation requirements and that has an actuarial value of at least two-thirds or one-half of the costliest continuation coverage available under the plan (excluding that in which an insignificant proportion of eligible individuals is enrolled) at respectively reduced premiums. Treats, with certain exceptions, divorce (or annulment) or separation of a covered employee from the employee's spouse, if the employee disenrolls a qualified beneficiary within the 12-month period preceding the date of such divorce or separation, as a qualifying event (allowing the election of continuation coverage) and the loss of coverage a result (and by reason) of such event. Excludes eligibility under part B of Medicare on the basis of end stage renal disease as a condition that terminates continuation coverage (under current law, becoming eligible under Medicare terminates such coverage).
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.1604 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.1604 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.1604 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.1604 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.