Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Health Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House backs plan for pool for ‘uninsurables,’ limits startup funding to $75,000

Utah House of Representatives · February 21, 1990
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After lengthy debate about fiscal risk, the House approved HB67 to create a comprehensive insurance pool for people who cannot obtain coverage; lawmakers amended an original $3 million fiscal note to a $75,000 planning appropriation to fund actuarial studies and program setup.

The Utah House on Feb. 23 approved House Bill 67, a plan to create a comprehensive health‑insurance pool intended to make coverage available to individuals the private market deems uninsurable.

Sponsor Representative Jean R. Davis described the program as a vehicle to prevent catastrophic medical expenses from forcing families onto public assistance and to protect small businesses from financially destabilizing employee health costs. The original fiscal estimate for establishing and maintaining the pool was discussed as roughly $3 million, but Representative Valentine and others moved an amendment to limit immediate funding to $75,000 to pay for planning, actuarial work and program forms rather than to pay benefits.

Debate on the floor focused on actuarial risks such as “dumping” (employers disbanding plans to shift high‑cost individuals to the state pool) and “move‑ins” (individuals relocating to Utah to access the program). Supporters argued the planning appropriation would allow the state to collect accurate cost estimates and design exclusions or residency requirements to mitigate those risks; opponents warned other states had repealed similar funds when experience showed large overruns. Under the bill as amended, premiums for eligible individuals may range from 125% to 200% of a comparable healthy individual’s premium and the state would subsidize shortfalls up to the actuarial limits established by the legislation.

The House adopted the amendment and passed HB67; the bill will be returned to the Senate for further action.