by Sam Douglass

The constitutional rights of faith-based organizations operating in Vermont may be under attack with the passage of a bill on Thursday that advocates say contains a section that violates the First Amendment, attacks privacy, and places an unnecessary regulatory burden on nonprofit organizations. Opposition to the section culminated this week in two floor amendments to strike the offending section entirely from the bill. 

The bill, H.585, passed out of the House Healthcare Committee early this week on a bipartisan split vote of eight to three before moving to the floor. Introduced by House Republican leader Representative Patricia McCoy (R-Rutland 1), the bill contains a section (Section 10) that is a direct copy of another bill that was introduced to the committee in February of last year. 

This new section, copied from H.102, affects entities that organize what are known as “healthcare sharing plans” or “healthcare sharing arrangements,” which function similarly as risk pools covering medical expenses among large groups of people who opt in and pay into them—similar to other cooperative arrangements with shared resources. 

While they are not insurance plans, such sharing plans are offered as an alternative to traditional insurance as a cheaper way to obtain medical coverage. Members are often healthy and are looking for coverage for preventative care and other lower-level services. 

H.102, the 2025 bill that was introduced by Representative Connor Casey (D-Washington 4), places extensive regulatory oversight and reporting responsibilities on the entities that organize these cost-sharing arrangements. 

In his introduction of the bill to the committee, Casey argued that healthcare sharing plans are unregulated, exclude services like reproductive care, and aggressively market themselves in misleading ways. He further explained that sharing plans leave their members with unexpected medical debt. Casey stated that the goal of his bill is to foster transparency for consumers who may be misled into believing that these plans are, in fact, insurance plans. But the language of the bill itself may not reflect his stated goal. 

The bill requires the Department of Financial Regulation (DFR) to post a report of the data on its website once per year, but it does not require any notification to the public—requiring the public to already have knowledge of the report and where to find it. 

Advocates of sharing plans argue that the true intention of H.102 is to redefine plans as unlicensed insurance providers and place enough obstacles to turn organizers of the plans away, or open the door to outright bans. They cite a February 2025 Senate Finance Committee meeting, where the Deputy Commissioner of Insurance stated in reference to sharing plans, “Well, I’d actually just like to ban them if we could.”

It is unclear from committee discussions why the language from H.102 was inserted into H.585. When it was entered into the draft bill on February 25, an attorney from legislative council stated that the committee hadn’t discussed the change, and when the committee held a straw poll on each section of the bill on March 12, Section 10 was skipped over. 

Additionally, a review of committee records since February 25 shows that witness testimony on Section 10 was entirely in opposition, with no testimony in favor among those who testified. At the time, some committee members also expressed their hesitance to support the provision. “There are already a variety of guardrails that you’re following. It’s not like people are just doing what they want. I have to say, part of me feels like we shouldn’t be getting in the way of mutual aid, however it’s conducted. If neighbors want to chip in to help each other with their healthcare expenses, why is the government going to get in the way of that?” said Representative Brian Cina (P/D-Chittenden 15). 

According to sharing plan organizers who testified before the House Healthcare Committee, the plans are already suitably regulated to a similar degree as insurance companies. Plans fall under the oversight of the Vermont Attorney General and are held to the same standards of the Consumer Protection Act to prevent fraud and deceptive consumer practices. The advocates argued that increased oversight from DFR, which regulates the insurance market, will itself be misleading to the public by putting sharing plans and actual insurance providers in the same category of regulation. 

Advocates also argued that Section 10 of H.585 is a fundamental attack on religious freedom. Joel Noble, Director of Public Policy with Samaritan Ministries, described Section 10 as “an attack on religious entities wrapped in a data collection mandate.” 

While the language in Section 10 does not explicitly reference religion, healthcare sharing plans are consistently described by opponents and supporters as almost entirely religious in nature. “They are often faith-based. For the most part, they are faith-based,” said Mary Block, the Deputy Commissioner of Insurance with DFR. 

Many of the faith-based sharing plans require a declaration of faith and a commitment to taking care of your health in alignment with the shared faith of the arrangement. This can include prohibitions on drugs, smoking, or contraceptives. 

Opponents of Section 10 describe its inclusion in H.585 as standing on “desperately shaky constitutional grounds.” A legal memo sent to the committee alleges that the provisions of Section 10 are not only ambiguous and burdensome, they violate the rights of association and religious liberty. Colorado is the only state that has passed similar legislation, and First Amendment lawsuits filed against it are currently pending.

The section was opposed on the House floor, with two separate attempts to strike the language from the bill. Representatives Rob North (R-Addison 3) and Zachary Harvey (R-Rutland 3) brought these attempts. Both failed. Those voting yes on the Harvey amendment were all Republicans:

Bosch of Clarendon
Branagan of Georgia
Burtt of Cabot
Canfield of Fair Haven
Charlton of Chester
Coffin of Cavendish
Demar of Enosburgh
Dobrovich of Williamstown
Dolgin of St. Johnsbury
Feltus of Lyndon
Goslant of Northfield
Harvey of Castleton
Higley of Lowell
Howland of Rutland Town
Labor of Morgan
Laroche of Franklin
Micklus of Milton
Morrissey of Bennington
Nelson of Derby
North of Ferrisburgh
Pinsonault of Dorset
Powers of Waterford
Pritchard of Pawlet
Tagliavia of Corinth
Taylor of Mendon
Winter of Ludlow