Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Assembly Bill 696

External review process of health benefit plan decisions

Topics: Insurance: Commissioner, Office of, Insurance: Health, Medical practice, Group

Stopped in committee

It never got a ⁠, so it never came up for a vote. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Mar 13, 2012

  2. Committee, stopped here

    Stopped here. No public hearing was held.

  3. Assembly vote, not reached

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 4, 2012: “Fiscal estimate received”

It never got a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Insurance. See every bill that never got a hearing this session.

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under current law, a health insurer must have an internal grievance procedure and an independent review procedure whereby an insured person may appeal certain types of coverage denials to an independent review organization. This bill makes the following changes to the independent review process that health insurers must provide:

1. Under current law, with some exceptions, an insured must exhaust the internal grievance procedure before the insured may request an independent review of a coverage denial. The bill adds as another exception to that requirement that the insurer or another entity other than the insured did not meet all of the timelines required under the internal grievance procedure.

Read the full summary

2. Under current law, access to the independent review process must be provided for a reduction, denial, or termination of treatment or payment for treatment related to the admission to a facility, the availability of care, or the continued stay in a facility (adverse determination) if the amount of the reduction or the cost of the denied or terminated treatment exceeds $250, adjusted in accordance with the consumer price index. Also under current law, access to the independent review process must be provided for a denial of treatment on the basis that the treatment is experimental (experimental treatment determination) if the cost of the denied treatment exceeds $250, adjusted in accordance with the consumer price index. The bill removes the minimum dollar amount for both adverse determinations and experimental treatment determinations.

3. Under current law, the insured selects an independent review organization and notifies the insurer both that he or she is requesting an independent review and which independent review organization he or she has selected to conduct the review.

Under the bill, the insured notifies both the insurer and the commissioner of insurance (commissioner) that he or she is requesting an independent review, and the commissioner then, within two business days, randomly selects the independent review organization that will conduct the review.

4. Current law provides a timeline within which an insurer must submit information to the independent review organization and the independent review organization must make a decision. The bill generally does not change the timeline, but specifies that in no case may the independent review organization send its written decision to the insured and insurer more than 60 days after it was notified of its selection by the commissioner.

5. Current law provides an expedited timeline for independent reviews when the independent review organization determines that, due to the insured's health condition, following the usual timeline would jeopardize the insured's life or health (urgent matters). The bill eliminates the expedited timeline and provides, simply, that in urgent matters the independent review organization must notify the insured and insurer of its decision no more than four business days after it was notified of its selection by the commissioner. Additionally, if notification to the insured and insurer of its decision was not in writing, the independent review organization must send written confirmation of its decision within 48 hours after providing the initial notice of its decision.

6. Finally, current law provides that a decision regarding an experimental treatment determination is limited to a determination of whether the proposed treatment is experimental and specifies what an independent review organization must find to determine that a treatment is not experimental and to find in favor of the insured. The bill does not change what an independent review organization must find to find in favor of the insured, but removes the restriction that an experimental treatment determination is limited to a determination of whether the proposed treatment is experimental and requires that an independent review of an experimental treatment determination must provide for all the same protections that apply in an independent review of an adverse determination.

Who's behind it

5 representatives are its ⁠. All 5 are Democrats.

2 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 7 names

Authors (5)

Signed on in support (2)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

What happened

  1. Apr 4, 2012

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  2. Mar 23, 2012

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  3. Mar 13, 2012

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Insurance.

  4. Mar 13, 2012

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Mar 13, 2012 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Richards, Berceau, Pasch, Pope-Roberts and Turner;Cosponsored by Senators Erpenbach and Carpenter

  2. Mar 13, 2012 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Insurance

  3. Mar 23, 2012 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

  4. Apr 4, 2012 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate