The House Health & Human Services Committee voted to advance a narrowed version of Senate Bill 48 that would require certain large-group health plans to cover behavioral therapies, the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) or a comparable program, and bariatric surgery, while making coverage of GLP‑1 and other weight-loss medications an employer option.

Representative Mabry, one of the sponsors, opened the bill by citing rising obesity rates and state cost estimates. “The Colorado obesity rate is projected to increase … and the Colorado Department of Health estimates that obesity costs our state $1,600,000,000 annually,” she said. As introduced the bill included requirements across individual, small and large group markets and Medicaid for broader coverage, but sponsors said they negotiated a narrower approach to avoid large fiscal exposures.

Representative Brown, the co-prime sponsor, described the final bill as “a scaled back approach” that preserves options for employers to include GLP‑1 medications in the health plans they offer while ensuring large employers can obtain coverage for diabetes prevention and treatment services. Brown said an amendment requested by the Department of Personnel and Administration allows use of programs “substantially similar to the National Diabetes Prevention Program.”

Witnesses were divided. The Colorado Association of Health Plans opposed the bill’s structure, citing the high cost of GLP‑1 drugs and concerns about rate filings and pools if carriers must offer two plan variants (with and without medication coverage). Jason Hoffer of the association warned of precedent in other states and cited estimates of significant premium increases in comparable jurisdictions.

Health-care clinicians and professional associations testified in favor of coverage for medical nutrition therapy and preventive services. Joanna Cummings, a registered dietitian representing the Colorado Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, said medical nutrition therapy delivered by credentialed dietitians provides individualized care and can yield cost savings. Doctor Adam Gildan, an internist and obesity specialist, supported increased access to medications and told the committee the new drugs represent a major shift in clinical practice; he noted limitations in Medicaid access and urged careful utilization controls.

Committee members focused questions on three themes: whether employers already can include these benefits and why statutory language is needed; the fiscal implications of covering medications in Medicaid and the individual market; and how coverage would interact with other legislation on medical nutrition therapy licensing. Representative Johnson repeatedly asked why employers could not simply negotiate plans with carriers and whether an opt-in approach would suffice; sponsors said the bill ensures the option is available to employers of varying sizes and plan structures.

Following testimony and a single technical amendment, the committee adopted the NDPP-or-comparable amendment and advanced SB 48 to the Committee of the Whole by a 7–6 vote. Several committee members said they supported the bill’s goals but remained concerned about costs and the bill’s narrower scope relative to the initial proposal.

The bill as amended does not require Medicaid to cover GLP‑1 medications; sponsors said including Medicaid produced an unsustainable fiscal note in earlier drafts. Sponsors said they intend future conversations about state employee plans but emphasized that the current draft is a compromise meant to preserve options for employers and evidence-based diabetes prevention services.