Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 27, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Definitions; General Provisions Title II: Certification of Health Plans Title III: Enforcement Family Health Care Fairness Act of 1995 - Title I: Definitions; General Provisions - Defines terms for purposes of this Act. Mandates a process under which a health plan may apply to be certified under this Act. Provides for certification review, termination, and nonrenewal. Conditions certification on meeting the requirements of this Act. Title II: Certification of Health Plans - Sets forth requirements plans must meet for certification, including regarding: (1) access to care (including emergency and urgent care and specialized services); (2) choice of health professionals, a point-of-service option, and continuity of care; (3) nondiscrimination against individuals or providers on the basis of race and other factors, including the individual's (or the providers' patients') health status and anticipated need for services; (4) mechanisms used in development of plan policies; (5) certain procedures relating to utilization review and appeals processes; (6) certain due process rights for providers; (7) marketing materials and information provided by plans to enrollees and prospective enrollees; (8) confidentiality; (9) plan financial reserves and solvency; and (10) a quality assurance program and case review. (Sec. 210) Mandates a study and report to the Congress on the feasibility and desirability of voluntary health plan participation in a system that: (1) uses a risk adjustment mechanism for enhanced premium payments to plans serving high risk or underserved populations; and (2) requires part of such premiums to be passed through to providers serving such populations. Title III: Enforcement - Mandates regulations to enforce this Act. (Sec. 302) Prohibits plans from inappropriately limiting or denying care through any utilization review or cost containment technique. Allows any individual alleging injury caused by a clinically or medically inappropriate decision resulting from the design or application of utilization review or cost containment to commence a civil action against the plan in State or Federal court. Prohibits plans from requiring any provider to indemnify the plan for recovery in such an action. Prohibits States from limiting plan liability under such an action.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 3, 2026. 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.2400 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.2400 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.2400 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.2400 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.