SB 478 Allows for direct primary health care services to be provided through a medical retainer agreement between the physician and patient
Sponsor: Onder
LR Number: 2204S.03I Fiscal Notes
Committee: Veterans' Affairs and Health
Last Action: 4/2/2015 - SCS Voted Do Pass S Veterans' Affairs and Health Committee (2204S.04C) Journal Page:
Title: Calendar Position:
Effective Date: August 28, 2015

Full Bill Text | All Actions | Amendments/CCRs/CCSs | Available Summaries | Senate Home Page | List of 2015 Senate Bills

Current Bill Summary


SCS/SB 478 - This act defines a "medical retainer agreement" as a contract between a physician and a patient or such patient's legal representative in which the parties agree to the provision of specified services in exchange for an agreed-upon fee. Medical retainer agreements shall not be considered insurance and physicians entering into such agreements shall not be required to obtain a certificate of authenticity or a license to market, sell, or offer to sell a medical retainer agreement. Medical retainer agreements shall: (1) be in writing; (2) be signed by the parties; (3) allow either party to terminate the agreement on written notice to the other party; (4) describe the specific health care services to be included; (5) specify the fee; (6) specify the period of time under the agreement; and (7) prominently state in writing that the agreement is not insurance.

A patient's fees under a medical retainer agreement may be paid from the patient's medical savings account. A patient's employer may make contributions into the patient's health savings account to cover any or all of the agreed-upon fees under the medical retainer agreement or pay the agreed-upon fees directly to the physician under the medical retainer agreement.

Finally, covenants not to compete entered into between a physician and a nonprofit employer shall not apply to medical retainer agreements entered into or continued after the termination of the physician's employment with the nonprofit employer, and no physician shall be considered in breach of such a covenant.

This act is substantially similar to HB 769 (2015) and HCS/HB 769 (2015).

SARAH HASKINS