Senate committee backs change to guarantee health, dental and vision coverage for families of officers killed in line of duty

The Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Standing Committee on Oct. 12 favorably recommended a first substitute to Senate Bill 255 to ensure surviving spouses of law-enforcement officers killed in the line of duty retain the health benefits the officer had at the time of death.

Senator John Owens, the bill's sponsor, told the committee the measure is meant to remove ambiguity about what "health care" covers and to ensure families continue to receive whatever benefits the officer had at death, including dental and vision. "If you just say health care, then, sometimes that doesn't mean dental, medical, vision," Owens said.

Chief Rod Hurst of Santaquin City, who brought the need for the bill to Owens after his department lost an officer last year, described the local cost and the practical gap the bill aims to fix. He told the committee the total annual insurance cost for the widow of the fallen officer was quoted in committee as "$15,000.340, dollars 15 thousand 3 hundred and 40 8" and that dental coverage for the widow was "$118.94 per month." Chief Hurst said his mayor agreed to continue covering the benefits indefinitely, but he expressed concern that local leaders could change that in the future. "I'm certain [surviving spouses] are wondering if we are gonna take care of them the same way we took care of Mrs. Hoosier," Hurst said.

The first substitute clarifies funding and administrative language: the 12 months of premiums initially paid by the local agency would be reimbursed from the statewide surviving-spouse trust rather than by the Department of Public Safety. Owens told the committee the substitute corrects the drafting to have reimbursement come from "this surviving spouse trust." Committee discussion touched briefly on whether the change should be retroactive; Owens said the bill is drafted to apply going forward but that the committee could consider a retroactivity clause.

Three law-enforcement representatives urged support. Brian Guilliam, chief of the Lone Peak Police Department and president of the Utah Chiefs of Police Association, described meetings with families who felt forgotten over time and said the bill addresses an important gap. "Over the last 10 years, we've lost 8 police officers that would have benefited from this particular legislation," Guilliam said, adding that since 2020 the association recorded 16 losses across agencies. Nicole Cooney, a Provo insurance agent who assisted the family through the transition, said dental and vision are relatively low-cost benefits and her office supports the bill. Colonel Mike Rapich, deputy commissioner at the Utah Department of Public Safety, told the committee the department supports the bill as an important measure for surviving spouses.

Senator Vickers moved to delete the title and body of SB 255 and replace them with the first substitute; the motion passed. Senator Blum then moved to favorably recommend the first substitute to the full Senate; the committee approved the recommendation by voice vote. The committee recorded the outcome as approved (tally: 4-0).

The bill now goes to the full Senate. The substitute's primary drafting change was to ensure reimbursements for the first 12 months of premiums come from the existing surviving-spouse trust rather than the Department of Public Safety; the substitute does not explicitly make the benefit changes retroactive unless the Legislature adds language to that effect.