Ohio legislation

Governor DeWine signed H.B. 96, the two-year state operating budget, into law on June 30. Over the last few months, we have reported on provisions in the biennial budget related to agriculture.  In this week’s installment, we will examine the changes the bill makes to what is permissible in the practice of veterinary medicine in the state of Ohio.

In the beginning of June, we reported on S.B. 60, which would allow veterinarians to practice telehealth in Ohio.  You can find our previous post here.  Instead of being passed as a stand-alone bill, the provisions about veterinary telehealth were included in the state operating budget, H.B. 96. Looking broadly at the provisions included in H.B. 96, there are four main changes to veterinary law. The language in the budget bill:

1. Allows the use of veterinary telehealth services;
2.  Allows a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) to be established via a telehealth visit in some cases;
3. Creates special requirements for the use of telehealth services for livestock animals; and
4. Allows veterinarians to prescribe medication via telehealth visit with certain exceptions.

Telehealth services for veterinary care permitted

During the Covid-19 pandemic and in the years following, most of us have become familiar with visiting our doctors via telehealth appointments using a computer or smartphone. H.B. 96 allows this appointment method to also be used in veterinary care in the state of Ohio.

Under the budget bill, a licensed veterinarian may conduct the practice of veterinary medicine via telehealth services if all the following apply:

• The veterinarian obtains the informed consent from the client, including an acknowledgement that the standards of care required by Ohio law equally apply to in-person and telehealth visits. The veterinarian shall maintain documentation of the consent for at least three years after receiving the informed consent.
• The veterinarian provides the client with the veterinarian's name and contact information and secures an alternate means of contacting the client if the telehealth visit is interrupted. Following the telehealth visit, the veterinarian shall make available to the client an electronic or written record of the visit. The electronic or written record shall include the veterinarian's license number.
• Before conducting an evaluation of a patient via a telehealth visit, the veterinarian advises the client of all the following:
  • The veterinarian may ultimately recommend an in-person visit with the veterinarian or another licensed veterinarian;
  • The veterinarian is prohibited under federal law from prescribing certain drugs or medications based only on a telehealth visit;
  • The appointment for a telehealth visit may be terminated at any time.
• A licensed veterinarian may prescribe drugs or medications after establishing a veterinary-client patient relationship via telehealth services within certain parameters and with certain exceptions (see the “Prescribing medication via telehealth visit” heading below).

Once the veterinarian shares all of this information with their client, and if the rules for prescribing drugs are followed, a telehealth veterinary visit is legally permitted in the state of Ohio under the language of H.B. 96.

Changes to veterinary-client-patient relationships

Much like a doctor-patient relationship takes place between a doctor and a person who is their patient, a veterinary-client-patient relationship takes place between a veterinarian, their client (the animal’s owner), and the patient (the animal). According to Ohio law, a VCPR relationship exists when the following conditions have been met:

• A veterinarian assumes responsibility for making clinical judgments regarding the health of a patient and the need for medical treatment, medical services, or both for the patient, and the client has agreed to follow the veterinarian's instructions regarding the patient.
• The veterinarian has sufficient knowledge of the patient to initiate at least a general or preliminary diagnosis of the medical condition of the patient. In order to demonstrate that the veterinarian has sufficient knowledge, the veterinarian must have seen the patient recently, and must be personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the patient by doing any of the following:
  • Making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the patient is kept;
  • Examining the patient in person; or
  • Under the new provisions of H.B. 96, by examining the patient in real time via telehealth.
• The veterinarian is readily available for a follow-up evaluation, or has arranged for emergency coverage, in the event the patient suffers adverse reactions to the treatment regimen, or the treatment regimen fails.

H.B. 96 keeps previous Ohio law concerning the establishment of a VCPR intact, but it also broadens the law by allowing for “sufficient knowledge” of a patient to be gained by a telehealth examination. However, as we will discuss below, this is not the case when it comes to livestock animals.

Telehealth for livestock

Up until now, we have discussed requirements for veterinary telehealth broadly.  When a telehealth visit includes a client who raises livestock for human food consumption, the new language is a bit more strict. In the case of livestock, a VCPR must be established in person prior to the use of telehealth services. While a VCPR for non-livestock animals may be established via a telehealth appointment, VCPRs involving livestock must first include that in-person meeting. This means that a veterinarian may not treat or diagnose an injury or illness in a livestock animal using telehealth if the veterinarian has not previously established an in-person VCPR with the patient and client. Once an in-person VCPR is established with respect to the livestock, the veterinarian may subsequently treat the livestock via telehealth appointment.  

That being said, the language in H.B. 96 allows veterinarian may give tele-advice to a client raising livestock prior to establishing a VCPR in person. Tele-advice means a veterinarian giving “health information, opinion, or guidance that is not intended to diagnose, treat, issue certificates of veterinary inspection, or issue prognoses of the physical or behavioral illness or injury of an animal.” According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, tele-advice can consist of broad recommendations via phone, text, or internet. Examples include recommendations that animals receive annual wellness checks, or that animals should receive preventive medicine to prevent worms or other pests. Under the new language, a veterinarian may give these kinds of general tele-advice regarding livestock, but they may not specifically treat or diagnose a livestock animal using telehealth without first establishing a VCPR in-person.

Prescribing medication via telehealth visit

Is a veterinarian permitted to prescribe medication for an animal via a telehealth visit under the new language? The answer is yes, but certain rules apply.  After a VCPR relationship is established, a veterinarian may issue a prescription lasting up to fourteen days for the patient via tele-health visit.  The veterinarian may additionally issue one refill of the medication for up to fourteen days if another tele-health visit with the patient and client occurs. However, for additional refills, the veterinarian must see the patient in person. Remember that for livestock animals, the VCPR must be established in person before a veterinarian may prescribe drugs. Further, a veterinarian may not prescribe a controlled substance (see the list of controlled substances in section 3719.01 of the Ohio Revised Code) to a patient unless a physical examination takes place in person.

With the passage of this language in H.B. 96, Ohio becomes the eighth state to allow the practice of veterinary medicine via telehealth. Other states include Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Jersey, Vermont, and Virginia. Proponents of the language cite that it will make veterinary care more accessible in the state, and that it will lessen the stress caused to animals by transporting them to and from a vet’s office H.B. 96 becomes effective on September 30, 2025. To read the budget bill in its entirety, click here.

Welcome to our third installment in our continuing series on provisions affecting agriculture in the recently passed State Operating Budget, or House Bill 96. Our previous blog posts in this series focused on changes to ag permits and licensing and to pesticide application laws, which you can find here and here. This week, our focus will be on the effects of H.B. 96 on apiaries throughout the state of Ohio.

Adjustments and additions to definitions

Under current Ohio law, an “apiary” is defined as “any place where one or more colonies or nuclei of bees are kept,” and “queen rearing apiaries” are defined as “any apiary in which queen bees are reared for sale or gift.” H.B. 96 changes the definition of “queen rearing apiaries” to “any apiary in which queens are raised or purchased for sale, trade, or gift; or otherwise distributed or used to create, for sale, trade or gift, nucs, packages or colonies.”  Thus, the budget bill expands the definition of “queen rearing apiaries” to not only include apiaries where queens are raised for distribution, but also apiaries where queens are purchased for distribution in order to create bee colonies.

H.B. 96 also adds a definition to the law governing apiaries.  In the budget bill, “nuc” is defined as a small colony of bees in a hive box to which all of the following applies:

1. The hive box contains three to five frames.
2. The hive box contains a laying queen bee and the queen’s progeny in egg, larval, pupa, and adult stages.
3. The small colony has honey and a viable population sufficient enough to develop into a full-sized economy.

These changes to definitions under the apiary law appear to have been made to increase the number of apiaries ODA has the authority to regulate, as you will see in the next section.  The ultimate goal of these changes seems to be for ODA to have more oversight over the health and safety of apiaries in Ohio.

Compliance, registrations, certification

Ohio apiarists should also be aware that H.B. 96 makes changes to compliance requirements under the apiary law. New language in H.B. 96 requires any person engaged in the rearing of queen bees to have a written compliance agreement with ODA. Under the agreement, the person must agree to comply with the requirements stipulated by ODA.

Furthermore, new language states that each person intending to sell, trade, gift, or otherwise distribute queen bees, packaged bees, nucs, or colonies will now be required to request that ODA certify all of a person’s queen rearing apiaries. A certification fee of fifty dollars or another amount specified by ODA in rulemaking is also created. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, the introduction of this $50 fee will bring in approximately $41,000 annually to benefit the Plant Pest Program Fund.

 H.B. 96 authorizes ODA to require all queen rearing apiaries to be inspected as specified in rules at least annually, whereas the previous language required inspections once each year with no authority to alter inspection frequency. This change would seemingly give ODA the ability to inspect apiaries more frequently, and as a result, they could keep a better eye on any problems with individual apiaries. Previously, if such an inspection found that there was a serious bee disease or that Africanized honey bees were present, bee owners were subject to certain rules. The new language also includes the finding of bee “pests” to trigger these rules, which appears to give ODA another tool to keep bee populations throughout the state safe.  Once disease or pest problem is resolved, ODA can issue an official certificate attesting to this.  Producers must include a copy of this certificate with each queen, nuc, or colony they distribute. Such a certificate will expire on May 31^st of the following year and may be renewed annually. H.B. 96 also outlaws the distribution of bees, honeycombs, or used beekeeping equipment that contains a serious bee disease or pest.

Ohio law requires any person owning or possessing bees to register with ODA, and H.B. 96 makes some tweaks to this registration process.  Under the new language, a person must apply for registration on or before the first day of June each year, or thereafter within thirty days after owning or possessing the bees or moving bees into Ohio from another state.  Previously, an owner had ten days to apply for registration, so the new language gives people a bit more time.  New language also requires owners to register each of their apiaries, regardless of whether the apiary is located at their place of residence or elsewhere. H.B. 96 also eliminates the five dollar registration fee.

H.B. 96 also gives the director of ODA the power to suspend any apiary registration, certificate, permit, or compliance agreement for cause.

When will these changes become effective?

The budget bill becomes effective on September 30, 2025. The Ohio State Beekeepers Association (OSBA) has been working with ODA throughout the month of July to get more clarity about what the language changes mean for beekeepers, and how regulations will be carried out under the new law. OSBA’s page dedicated to information about H.B. 96 is available here. ODA’s website on apiaries is located here.

As always, H.B. 96 is available in its entirety here. Stay tuned to the Ag Law Blog for more updates on the State Budget and its effect on agriculture.

After months of deliberation, the General Assembly delivered H.B. 96, the two-year state operating budget, to Governor Mike DeWine.  Governor DeWine signed the bill into law on June 30, vetoing several provisions. DeWine issued a number of line-item vetoes, and the General Assembly plans to hold a session on July 21 to override the vetoes related to property tax provisions in the bill. There is also a chance that the General Assembly may override additional vetoes unrelated to property tax in the fall. While we will certainly keep an eye on these possible veto overrides, the provisions of the budget bill affecting agriculture remain mostly intact. Over the next few weeks, we will be sharing a series of blog posts about the newly passed state operating budget and its implications for agriculture in Ohio. Today’s focus will be on several licensing, permit, and fee changes affecting the ag and food sectors.  

Various fee increases and changes

H.B. 96 increases inspection, licensing, and registration fees in many ag and food related industries. For instance, the budget bill:

• Increases the cost of a license to manufacture and distribute fertilizer in the state of Ohio from $5 to $50.  If the manufacturer/distributor fails to renew its license, the late fees increase from $10 to $25.
• Increases the annual base inspection fee for plant nurseries that produce, sell, or distribute woody nursery stock from $100 to $200. On top of the inspection fee, there is a charge of $15 per acre for nursery stock grown in intensive production areas, and a charge of $10 per acre for nursery stock grown in non-intensive production areas.
• Changes the annual registration fees for bakeries. The fee used to begin at $30 and go up depending on how much product the bakery produced. H.B. 96 changes the annual bakery registration fee to a flat $200.
• Increases the license fee for frozen food manufacturing facilities, chill rooms, sharp freezing rooms and facilities, or sharp freezing cabinets from $50 to $200.

Seed labeler permits

In Ohio, no person is allowed to label agricultural, vegetable, or flower seed that is intended for sale in the state without a seed labeler permit. The budget bill makes the following changes to commercial seed labeler permits:

• • Increases the cost of permits from $10 to $50.
  • Moves the expiration date for seed labeler permits from December 31^st to January 31^st of each year.
  • Requires labelers to submit a sales report to the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) annually instead of semiannually.
  • A seed fee based on the amount of seed sold is typically due at the same time as the annual sales report. H.B. 96 changes how this seed fee is collected for alfalfa, clover, grass, native grass, mixtures containing any of these, and all agricultural, vegetable and flower seeds not specifically mentioned in the law. The new language states that if the total amount of fees due is less than $50, then seed labelers no longer need to pay a minimum fee.

Livestock dealer licensing

Ohio law defines livestock “dealers” or "brokers,” with some exceptions, as “any person found by the department of agriculture buying, receiving, selling, slaughtering, exchanging, negotiating, or soliciting the sale, resale, exchange, or transfer of any animals in an amount of more than two hundred fifty head of cattle, horses, or other equidae, or five hundred head of sheep, goats, or other bovidae, swine and other suidae, poultry, alpacas, llamas, or monitored captive deer, captive deer with status, or captive deer with certified chronic wasting disease status during any one year.” H.B. 96 modifies the law regarding licensing for these livestock dealers and brokers in the following ways:

• • Licensing fees for dealers and brokers used to be based on the number of head of livestock they sold per year. The new language creates a flat fee of $250 per annum.
  • Increases licensing fees for small dealers from $25 to $50, and late fees for small dealers from $25 to $100.
  • Increases licensing fees for each licensed weigher and each employee appointed by a livestock dealer from $20 to $30.

Registration and inspections for manufacturers and distributors of commercial feeds

Finally, the budget bill modifies registration and inspection requirements for manufacturers and distributors of commercial feeds. Commercial feed includes “all materials…that are distributed for use as feed or for mixing in feed for animals.” Under the new language in H.B. 96, the following changes have been made:

• • Manufacturers and distributors of commercial feed must register annually with ODA. Registration is due on February 1^st of each year and expires January 31^st each year.
  • Manufacturers and distributors must pay an annual registration fee of $50.
  • Inspection fees for commercial feed distributors will be collected annually instead of semiannually.
  • ODA will not collect inspection fees on the first two hundred tons of commercial feed sold by a distributor of commercial feed in a calendar year.

If you’re up for some light reading, H.B. 96 is available in its entirety here. Stay tuned for our continuing series on the state operating budget!

Written by Ellen Essman, J.D., Senior Research Associate with the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Note:  We welcome Ellen Essman to the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program.  Ellen worked with us previously, and has returned to assist with covering legislation and serving as the Education Director for our Ohio Farm Resolution Services agricultural mediation program. 

The Ohio General Assembly is currently considering several bills that would affect agriculture, farmers, livestock producers, sellers of homemade foods, landowners, and students participating in FFA or 4-H.  Here is an update on the bills we are following, including a few updates on bills we mentioned in our last legislative blog post.

H.B. 10 – Imitation meat and egg products

As we reported in our previous legislative blog post, H.B. 10 would prohibit the sale of foods that are “misbranded” as meat or egg products. Sponsored by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Jack Daniels (R-New Franklin), H.B. 10 defines “misbranded” meat and egg products as those that: contain manufactured-protein food products or fabricated-egg products, are offered for sale by a food processing establishment, and have a package label that includes certain “meat” or “egg” terms.  A food processing establishment that sells misbranded meat and egg products would be subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 per day.  The bill would also require Ohio agencies to request a USDA exemption of cultivated-protein food products and fabricated-egg products from eligibility under SNAP and WIC food programs and would require Ohio school districts and state institutions of higher education to adopt policies preventing the purchase of cultivated-protein food products or foods misbranded as meat or egg products. H.B. 10 is still being deliberated in the House Agriculture Committee. At the bill’s most recent hearing on May 28, there was no opponent or proponent testimony.

H.B. 65 – Agriculture Appreciation Act

The Ohio House of Representatives passed H.B. 65 on April 2, and the bill was introduced in the Senate on April 8. The bill had its first hearing in the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on May 27, where sponsors by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) testified on its behalf.  The sponsors cited the importance of agriculture to Ohio’s economy, and the long tradition of agriculture in Ohio as the catalysts for introducing this bill. The act proposes the following official designations:

• “FFA Week” as the week ending with the last Saturday in February.
• “4-H Week” as the week ending with the second Saturday of March.
• “Agriculture Day” on March 21.
• "National Farmers Market Week" as the first full week of August.
• “Ohio Stormwater Awareness Week” as the first week of October.
• “Farmer’s Day” on October 12
• “Ohio Soil Health Week” as the second full week of November, to celebrate and raise awareness for the importance of soil health and in honor of the birthday of soil pioneer and advocate David Brandt.

H.B. 65 had its second hearing in Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources on June 3, with no in-person testimony. 

H.B. 125 – Excused school absences for 4-H and FFA programs

Introduced in the House on February 24 by sponsors Rep. Thomas Hall (R-Middletown) and Rep. Rodney Creech (R-West Alexandria), H.B. 125 has since had three hearings in the House Education Committee.  The bill would require school districts to grant excused absences for participation in scheduled 4-H and FFA activities or programs to students in grades K-12, and to allow those students to make up any school work missed as a result of that absence. In order to verify absences for 4-H or FFA activities, the school must receive written documentation from 4-H or FFA educators. The bill would not allow for excused absences for 4-H activities during state testing or when a student has been disciplined by, suspended, or expelled from school.

H.B. 134 – Microenterprise home kitchen operation

A bi-partisan bill would add Ohio to the small but growing list of states that have adopted “food freedom laws” to loosen regulations on the sale of homemade foods.  Sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester) and Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D-Columbus), H.B. 134 would create a new “microenterprise home kitchen operation” registration that would broaden the types of foods a person could produce at home and sell directly to customers. Ohio law currently allows a person to sell certain “cottage foods” and “home bakery” foods with minimal regulation but requires producers of other foods to produce the foods in a commercial kitchen and operate under state and local food licenses.  H.B. 134 would remove those requirements and allow a registered microenterprise home kitchen operation to produce and sell any homemade foods (except those containing alcohol or drugs), including items such as canned goods and hot meals.  The annual $25 registration would require an inspection by the Ohio Department of Agriculture to ensure the microenterprise home kitchen operation meets requirements in the law regarding operations, food safety, storage and preparation, and sales and delivery of the food.  H.B. 134 received its second hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on April 9, with two proponents testifying in support of the bill.

H. B. 201 – Allow specified hunting on landowner’s property without a permit

H.B. 201 was introduced in the House on March 26 by Rep. Kevin Miller (R-Newark), and Dani Isaacshon (D-Cincinnati), and had its first hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee on May 7.  The bill would expand the list of relatives that may hunt and trap on an Ohio landowner’s property without purchasing a hunting license, deer or wild turkey permit, or fur taker permit from the Ohio Department of Natural Resource’s Division of Wildlife. The bill would make the following changes:

• Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children and grandchildren under 18 to hunt on the land without a license.  H.B. 201 would extend this to also allow parents of Ohio landowners to hunt without a license.
• Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children to hunt deer and turkey on the land without obtaining permits.  H.B. 201 would also allow the landowner’s parents and grandchildren to do so.
• Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children to hunt and trap fur-bearing animals on the land without a permit. H.B. 201 would expand the current law to allow an Ohio landowner’s parents and grandchildren under 18 to hunt and trap without a permit.

S.B. 60 – Veterinarian Telehealth

Since the Covid-19 pandemic, we have all become familiar with telehealth medical appointments. S.B. 60, sponsored by Sen. Shane Wilkin, (R-Hillsboro), and Sen. Steve Huffman (R-Tipp City), would expand the ability to conduct telehealth appointments to veterinarians with their clients and patients (animals) under certain circumstances.  Current law requires a veterinary-client-patient (VCP) relationship to be established in-person via an examination or visit to the patient.  S.B. 60 would allow VCP relationships to be established via real time telehealth examinations.

The bill would also allow a licensed veterinarian to conduct telehealth services with a client and their animal (the patient) if:

• The veterinarian obtains the informed consent from the client, including an acknowledgement that the standards of care prescribed by the law governing veterinarians equally apply to in-person and telehealth visits;
•  The veterinarian provides the client with the veterinarian’s name and contact information and secures an alternate means of contacting the client if the telehealth visit is interrupted; and
• Before conducting an evaluation of a patient via a telehealth visit, the veterinarian advises the client concerning certain information, including that the veterinarian may ultimately recommend an in-person visit.

Further, the bill would place some requirements on prescribing drugs during a telehealth appointment, including:

• A veterinarian may issue an initial prescription for up to 14 days. The veterinarian may issue one refill for up to 14 days if the veterinarian sees the patient for another telehealth visit. For additional refills, the patient must visit the veterinarian in person.
• The veterinarian must notify the client that certain prescription drugs or medications may be available at a pharmacy and, if requested, the veterinarian will submit a prescription to a pharmacy of the client’s choosing; and
•  The veterinarian must not order, prescribe, or make available a controlled substance unless the veterinarian has performed an in-person physical examination of the patient.

S.B. 60 had its second committee hearing in Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources on May 27.  Senators on the committee discussed amendments to the bill that would make the following changes:

• For livestock raised as food for human consumption, a VCP relationship must first be made in person before telehealth appointments would be permitted;
• However, veterinarians may give “tele-advice” prior to VCP being established in person. “Tele-advice” was described as “opinion or guidance from a veterinarian, but not a diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis;”
• An addition to the bill that it would not invalidate anything from Chapter 956 of the Ohio Revised Code, which governs dog breeding; and
• Telehealth appointments must occur in within the state where the patient is located.

In the May 27 committee hearing, several proponents of the bill also gave testimony in its favor.  Those testifying cited numerous reasons why passage of the bill would be prudent, including the state shortage of veterinary professionals, the difficulty of people living in rural areas or with a lack of resources to access veterinary care for their animals, the passage of veterinary telehealth laws in other states, and the ability for veterinarians to give faster care in the case of emergencies. They also mentioned that the law would not replace in-person veterinary appointments but instead would be another tool in a veterinarian’s arsenal to care for animals. 

On June 3, the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held their third hearing on S.B. 60.  There was no in-person testimony, and the Committee favorably reported the bill, with the May 27 changes, out of committee. 

S.B. 122 – Local authority for agricultural land zoning resolutions

This bill was introduced in late February and had its first hearing in the Senate Local Government Committee on March 5 but no hearings since that date.  S.B. 122, sponsored by Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo), would eliminate the authority of townships and counties to adopt zoning resolutions for agricultural land under certain circumstances. 

The bill eliminates a township and county’s limited authority to utilize zoning to regulate any of the following in a platted subdivision or in an area consisting of 15 or more contiguous lots: 

• Agriculture on lots of one acre or less;
• Buildings or structures incident to the use of land for agricultural purposes on lots between one and five acres by setback building lines, height, and size; and
• Dairying and animal poultry husbandry on lots between one and five acres when at least 35% of the lots in the subdivision are developed with at least one building, structure, or improvement that is subject to real property taxation or that is subject to the tax on manufactured and mobile homes.

Ohio law currently prohibits regulation of agriculture, buildings or structures, and dairying and animal and poultry husbandry on lots greater than five acres. S.B. 122 would broaden that prohibition to protect agriculture on smaller lots, which would be beneficial to those practicing urban agriculture. 

S.B. 100 – Exemption from insurance regulations for nonprofit agricultural membership organizations

This bill would exempt healthcare benefits offered by “nonprofit agricultural membership organizations” from insurance regulations.  The bill passed the Senate in early April and was favorably reported out of the House Insurance Committee on May 27.  S.B. 100, sponsored by Sen. Susan Manchester (R-Waynesfield) would define a “nonprofit agricultural membership organization” as an organization that was incorporated in Ohio on or before December 31, 1919, to promote the interests of farms and that provides contractual healthcare benefit coverage exclusively with members of the organization and their families. Healthcare benefit coverage provided by such an organization, according to the proposal, is not “insurance” and is not subject to insurance regulations. The bill would also allow the nonprofit organizations to assume or reinsure the risks arising out of healthcare benefit coverage with a company authorized to provide insurance in Ohio.