Skip to main content

On February 6, 2025, the following two Georgia House of Representatives committees met to discuss bills to potentially advance:

Select the associated links to read each bill in full.

Economic Development and Tourism

HB 216

This bill concerns bringing technological chips manufacturing and packaging to Georgia. Most of these chips are made in Taiwan, so this bill is designed to attract this industry to Georgia. It gives an outline to some of the higher education institutions in Georgia—specifically Georgia Tech—regarding what the state legislature would like for them to do with a 3-year $100 million grant to attract the industry. HB 216 covers appointments and sets a sunset clause for June 30, 2028. 

The bill passed committee.

Insurance

HB 124

This bill relates to general provisions regarding insurance and state employees’ health benefit plans; it aims to require insurance providers to cover pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder (PANDAS) and pediatric acute neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS). PANDAS is a result of strep throat; PANS is a result from bacterial and viral infections. Both cause children to continuously catch illnesses and usually affect children through their early teens, but without treatment, these children could suffer effects for the rest of their lives. This bill seeks to require insurance to cover these illnesses. 

The bill passed committee.

HB 182

This bill deals with the exclusion of group life insurance policy, particularly as it pertains to members of our military on active duty; it was developed due to a request from the Department of Insurance. Every life insurance policy may contain exclusions, which are defined as circumstances causing death not covered by the policy. In most policies, the term “act of war” is most often used, but in the group life policy, the term is “active duty.” A servicemember could be in active duty and not be in a war zone—only about 5% of the military are ever in a combat situation in a war zone. This bill makes clear that someone being on “active duty” is not a valid reason to deny a claim.

The bill passed committee.