Director orders partial release of DHHS adviser submissions to SB16 review, with redactions

A Department of Government Records director ordered partial disclosure of adviser submissions to a Department of Health and Human Services review required under 2023 S.B. 16, finding that some adviser materials were not protected drafts or that public interest outweighed nondisclosure. The director withheld a separate item he concluded was draft language integral to the final recommendations.

Background: S.B. 16 (2023) required DHHS to complete a systematic medical evidence review concerning provision of hormonal treatments to minors. DHHS contracted with the University of Utah College of Pharmacy (the DRRC) to prepare the systematic review and then consulted a set of advisers specified by statute. Petitioners sought copies of individual advisers’ recommendations submitted to DHHS after the DRRC completed its draft review. DHHS and its counsel, represented by Mr. Thomas, withheld those adviser submissions as drafts under GRAMA’s draft exemption (Utah Code §63G‑2‑30522), describing them as part of the drafting process for the department’s executive summary and recommendations to the legislature.

Petitioner’s argument: The petitioner (through counsel Mr. Heath) argued the advisers’ individual recommendations are substantive opinions and considerations, not drafts of DHHS materials. Counsel stressed the DRRC’s draft report was completed before selection of advisers and that the executive summary does not show advisers were given the full draft. His principal contention was that GRAMA’s draft exemption should be construed narrowly and cannot be used to conceal substantive input received from outside entities that was not itself a preliminary version of the department’s document.

DHHS position: DHHS counsel said the adviser submissions were part of the drafting process and contained suggested language and editorial recommendations that contributed to the department’s final executive summary and recommendations. DHHS argued the statute’s advisory process and the purpose of the draft exemption supported protecting those communications so agencies can form and refine final products.

Director’s ruling: After in‑camera review, the director concluded that recommendations numbered 1 through 6 (as provided to the director for review) either did not qualify as protected drafts under the plain meaning of GRAMA’s draft exception or that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the interest in nondisclosure. The director ordered release of recommendations 1–6 with redactions to remove identifying information and, in recommendation 4, to remove extensive personal health information of a reviewer. The director found item 7 to be properly classified as a draft and denied disclosure of that item.

Why it matters: The ruling interprets GRAMA’s draft exemption narrowly in this context and reinforces GRAMA’s presumption of access unless a specific exception clearly applies. It also directs agencies to identify and redact narrowly where privacy or medical‑privacy concerns apply rather than broadly withholding adviser input.

Next steps and implementation: DHHS must produce redacted versions of recommendations 1–6 per the director’s order. Item 7 will remain withheld as draft language. The director noted legislators can obtain protected material through legislative processes when necessary, but that the public also has an interest in adviser positions that informed DHHS’s recommendations.

Sources: DGO hearing transcript, the executive summary referenced in the hearing materials, and the director’s in‑camera review notes. Direct quotes and attributions derive from the hearing record and counsel’s statements.

Ending note: The decision balances transparency and privacy: it narrows the draft exemption’s scope for adviser submissions while giving agencies a path to protect genuinely pre‑publication draft language that materially influenced a final product.