Editorial: Here are our views on new Illinois laws on everything from your health care coverage to your Netflix subscription

For those who mutter, “There ought to be a law,” when they see or experience something of which they disapprove, the Illinois General Assembly had their back in 2024. As always, there were dozens of new laws attempting to redress the irritations and injustices of day-to-day life, as well as to clamp down on practices few previously had considered nefarious.

One such law — the provision of small plastic shampoo bottles by hotels is (mostly) illegal in the Land of Lincoln as of today — we’ve already highlighted. But Gov. JB Pritzker signed nearly 300 new laws, most of which took effect Jan. 1. Democrats, enjoying super-majorities in both chambers, were mainly the authors of the new statutes by which Illinoisans will have to abide. Here now are several that caught our attention. And we’re never shy with our opinions.

House Bill 5395 and House Bill 2499: A landmark overhaul of health insurance practices in Illinois.

Many of the provisions in Pritzker’s top legislative priority last year won’t take effect until 2026. But a few are effective now, including the banning of short-term, limited-coverage insurance plans that supporters of the bill refer to as “junk insurance.”

For this year, the Department of Insurance and the health insurance industry will prepare for the many changes the law mandates beginning Jan. 1, 2026. They include the prohibition of step therapy provisions that require patients and doctors to try cheaper prescription alternatives before moving on to more expensive medications, which industry critics deride as “fail first.” The law will bar insurers from requiring prior authorization for in-patient psychiatric treatment. And the Insurance Department for the first time will have the authority to deny rate hikes sought by large-group insurance plans.

For all the criticism the health insurers get, and the industry is under a particularly intense microscope following the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s Brian Thompson, there’s a reason some of these companies put doctors and consumers through the hoops they do. Health care costs in the U.S. are out of control; this country spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation, and our outcomes lag most of the Western world.

Pritzker and fellow Democrats described their legislation as “common sense,” and indeed insurers are easy — and sometimes deserved — recipients of criticism for the crude steps they take to reduce costs. And to be clear, our health system is inefficient and makes too many of us miserable.

But if ever there were a subject where unintended consequences come into play, it’s access to health care. Are critics correct when they say elimination of short-term health plans simply will prevent some consumers who need stopgap coverage from getting it affordably? Would requirements for better disclosure of what consumers are getting — and not getting — with these short-term plans be preferable to an outright ban?

Time will tell, as they say. Whatever happens once these changes take full effect, we predict Illinois lawmakers will need to revisit this subject sooner rather than later.

Senate Bill 3649: Giving workers the right to skip “mandatory” workplace meetings discussing unionizing, politics and religion.

Organized labor has succeeded in convincing several states to bar employers from making workers sit through meetings where union organizing is discouraged. Illinois has joined this group — and taken this “captive audience” law further than most other states by including discussions involving politics or religion among those meetings workers can’t be compelled to attend.

The conservative Illinois Policy Institute has sued in federal court, claiming the law is an unconstitutional infringement on the free-speech rights of employers.

In practical terms, instances where legislative or regulatory actions directly affect a business fall under the umbrella of “politics.” It doesn’t make sense to us that employers subject, say, to a pending bill that would have a material impact on their business shouldn’t be allowed to compel staff to be updated on the issue and what their employers are doing about it.

This is overreach, plain and simple.

Senate Bill 508: Protecting workers whose immigration status comes into question.

This measure originally was described as close to an outright ban on employers using the federal E-Verify system to determine whether any of their workers or applicants are ineligible. The Illinois Labor Department in the fall clarified that employers still could use E-Verify but only if they followed the law’s detailed requirements on notifying affected employees of any problems and giving them a period of time to respond.

The bill’s chief sponsor, Democratic Sen. Javier Cervantes of Chicago, said, “Many immigrant employees have run into a problem where their documentation may have misinput their name with slight differences of dashes, spaces, letters with or without an accent, only to be flagged during the work verification process.” He said many employers simply terminate employees caught up in these misunderstandings rather than giving them time to clear up the confusion.

This law seems like a clear enough response to that problem, but it also (perhaps intentionally) risks employers shying away from using E-Verify at all for fear of not following all of the new rules. With a Trump administration committed to strict enforcement of immigration laws, that potentially puts employers in the position of running afoul of state or federal enforcement officials, whatever they decide to do. The law is the law, and immigration issues are the responsibility of the federal government. But let’s hope reason prevails in this sensitive area.

Senate Bill 2764: Helping consumers who want to cancel monthly bills before their teaser rates end.

Here’s a bill addressing an issue most of us can relate to. This measure, authored by Sen. Doris Tucker, D-Springfield, requires email notification of subscribers at least three days before their introductory rates convert automatically to higher rates.

It’s hard to argue with this consumer-friendly measure, since streaming services, websites, publications, broadcast channels and many other subscription-based services rely for their business growth in part on subscribers who forget they signed up at the teaser rate in the first place. That reminds us: Our New Year’s resolution is to comb through our unruly mess of monthly commitments and do some serious pruning.

House Bill 5408: No more camping on the shoulder waiting for O’Hare arrivals.

Anyone who’s picked someone up at O’Hare recently has seen long lines of cars parked on the shoulder just outside the airport. In one of the rare instances where a Republican-sponsored bill became law, this measure authored by Rep. Bradley Stephens, who also is the GOP mayor of Rosemont, was pitched as a safety act and won overwhelming support.

The law subjects anyone camped out on the shoulder within 2 miles of O’Hare to a $100 fine. C’mon, people. The cellphone lot at O’Hare has plenty of space.

Stay on the right side of the law, and Happy New Year to all!

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.