Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House amends and circles health insurance bill after heated debate over costs and scope
Summary
Members debated H.B. 120, a bill to extend dependent coverage, adopted amendments (exempting dependents with other group coverage and clarifying emergency care), rejected restoring a deleted cost-containment section in a close vote, then circled the bill for further amendment and placed it on the third-reading calendar during a wider calendar reshuffle.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House engaged in extended debate on Feb. 18, 1992, over House Bill 120, a measure addressing dependent health insurance coverage and related insurer contracting rules. Sponsors and opponents sparred over whether the bill would increase access to insurance or unintentionally raise premiums or advantage large insurers.
Rep. Evans, sponsor of H.B. 120, moved to uncircle the bill so it could be considered on the floor; Rep. Cindy Brown successfully offered an amendment to change the bill’s language on page 1, line 27 to read that coverage would not be required "except for dependents to whom group coverage is otherwise available," and the body adopted that amendment.
Concerns about contracting authority and market concentration were raised. Rep. James warned that broad contracting authority could allow insurers to favor large providers and "monopolize the entire state" for pharmacy services before the chair clarified that a contested contracting section had been deleted in committee amendments.
A major point of contention centered on cost containment. Rep. Lewis (who declared a conflict of interest) moved to restore a prior cost-containment section, arguing that without such measures access would be "illusory." The motion produced a close recorded division: the motion to amend (delete item number 5 on the pink sheet or restore certain language) passed with a reported 31–29 margin on one roll-call and later efforts to restore language failed on reconsideration. Floor debate covered portability and ERISA preemption, with members noting that roughly half of group-covered individuals are under ERISA-exempt self-funded plans and thus outside state mandate.
Because members wanted additional drafting on scope and fiscal impacts, the House voted to 'circle' H.B. 120 so staff could prepare further amendments. The body then approved a procedural motion to wipe the House and Senate calendars and placed several bills, including H.B. 120, on the third-reading calendar to be prioritized by the Rules Committee.
Representative Evans described the bill as "a first step" toward expanding coverage, while Representative Lewis cautioned, "If we're not willing to introduce some measure of cost containment, we ought not to pass this bill." The House set a Rules Committee meeting to prepare prioritized language and returned the bill to a status where additional, specified amendments will be prepared before final passage attempts.
Next steps: staff will prepare the requested amendments while Rules prioritizes third-reading scheduling; the bill returns to the House floor after those steps.
