Senate committee rejects bill that would have limited COVID-era masking, testing and vaccine requirements for subsidized entities

House Bill 96, a proposal to bar entities that receive state or federal subsidies from requiring masks, COVID testing or vaccinations, failed to pass the Labor, Health & Social Services Committee after extended testimony from public health, hospitals, colleges and business groups.

Sponsor Jeanette Ward described the measure as protecting individual liberty and preventing discrimination by businesses or organizations that receive taxpayer subsidies. “The bill eliminates discrimination for not wearing a mask, not receiving a so-called vaccine, or not getting tested,” Ward told the committee, and said the measure would apply only to COVID mitigation policies (masking, testing, vaccination) and not to personal protective equipment required in operating rooms or industrial hygiene settings.

Opponents warned of unintended consequences and conflicts with federal program rules. Eric Poelhling of the Wyoming Hospital Association said long-term care facilities and hospitals still face federal requirements tied to Medicare and Medicaid that require masking and isolation for outbreak control; he said the bill could place facilities in a position of losing federal payments if they complied with state-imposed prohibitions. “You’re asking us to serve two masters,” he said, and asked the Legislature to consider an appropriation if hospitals are financially penalized for following federal rules. Jan Cartwright of the Wyoming Public Health Association said the bill would weaken public-health tools needed to protect workers and vulnerable populations.

Representatives of business groups noted the potential for state–federal conflict. Chris Mickey of the business alliance said airports and other entities that receive federal funds can also be subject to federal mandates; the group would support a state reimbursement mechanism if the state requires entities to follow state rules instead of federal rules.

The committee debated the meaning of “subsidy” in the bill and whether Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement count as subsidies; witnesses testified that state or federal funds should be considered. Several senators said the bill’s sweep and the undefined term “subsidy” raised legal and practical questions. After debate, the committee held a roll-call vote. Votes recorded: Senator Simons voted aye; Senators Crum, Scott, Hutchings and Chairman Barlow voted no. The final tally was 1 yes and 4 no; the bill did not pass out of committee.

Why it matters: The bill would have limited the ability of publicly funded institutions and entities that receive government money to set COVID-related public-health requirements. Opponents said the text could conflict with federal funding conditions and place hospitals and nursing homes at financial risk; proponents framed the measure as protecting individual choice and preventing discrimination.

The committee’s decision leaves unresolved how the state should balance individual choice, public-health protections, and compliance with federal program conditions. The sponsor said she would work with interested parties on amendments if the bill is brought back.