With Spring in the Air, States Renew Their Efforts to Allow Value-Added Products and Services

Following North Dakota, New Mexico, and Washington’s actions in 2021, there is a renewed effort by states to freshen up their rebating provisions to allow value-added products and services.

Kansas came alive first by passing Senate Bill 448, which adopts nearly all of the rebating language from the NAIC’s recently updated Unfair Trade Practices Model Law (#880). Other states rejuvenating their rebating provisions include:

While the states are generally following Model 880’s language, some state variations include:

• Connecticut – Provides more specificity on the requirements for a pilot program and reflects that the Connecticut Insurance Department will be developing a process in which a pilot would be filed with the department.
• Georgia – Eliminates as types of permitted value-added products and services, those that are primarily designed to enhance health, enhance financial wellness through items such as education or financial planning services, and assist in the administration of the employee or retiree benefit insurance coverage.
• Vermont – Applies the new language only to insurers, eliminates the pilot program language, and requires an insurer offering or providing value-added products or services to submit to the commissioner, within 10 days of first making such offer or provision, a description of the offer or provision and an explanation of how each Vermont criterion for value-added products and services is met.

As the state legislative season reaches an equinox, further legislative activity may slow. However, state insurance departments may expose regulatory provisions adopting the updated Model 880 value-added products and services provisions.

©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.