Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance Mental Health Parity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts mental‑health parity changes after floor debate over cost and coverage
Summary
The Utah House on March 2000 concurred with Senate changes to third substitute House Bill 35, a mental‑health parity measure that creates different coverage options by employer size and sets implementation timing for HMOs and other policies. Members pressed sponsors on actuarial and fiscal impacts before passage.
Representative Jay Buckmeyer, the sponsor, told the House that third substitute House Bill 35 reorganizes mental‑health coverage by dividing the insurance market into three groups — individuals, small employers (2–50 employees) and large employers (51 or more) — and preserves existing mental‑health coverage while requiring insurers to offer specified catastrophic coverage options. "The bill divides the insurance market into 3 groups, individuals, small employers, and large employers," Buckmeyer said, adding the measure results from "over 8 hours of meeting with business, insurance, actuarials" and that stakeholders including Intermountain Healthcare and Blue Cross offered accommodations.
Why it matters: the law would change what plans small businesses and large employers may be offered and requires insurers to make certain mental‑health options available. Sponsors said the move aims to provide a safety net while allowing market choice for employers.
Floor debate focused almost entirely on cost estimates and prioritization. Representative Bennion pressed the sponsor on actuarial projections; Buckmeyer and supporters repeatedly cited an actuarial estimate "about a 1%" increase in premiums under the bill’s compromises, while acknowledging final determination rests with the state’s actuaries and will vary with use. "With the changes that this bill now has, that is the actuarial cost estimate," Buckmeyer said during questions. Members warned the actuarial range could be broader depending on utilization, with one member noting estimates could run higher than 1 percent if use is heavy.
Fiscal context and assurances: floor speakers circulated a fiscal note and a letter from Intermountain Healthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield describing agreed accommodations. Later in debate Representative Buffmeier summarized the available fiscal information, noting an estimated income of $12,000 in the first fiscal year and a break‑even point in year two as presented to the body.
Outcome: After extended questioning and a motion sequence that included attempts to delay for additional fiscal analysis, the House concurred with the Senate amendments and passed third substitute House Bill 35. The bill will be returned to the Senate for further action.
What’s next: sponsors said actuarial reviews will continue and that implementing rules and actuarial determinations will follow before the full financial impact is known. The House’s passage sends the amended bill back to the Senate and preserves the opportunity for final cost and implementation details to be clarified in follow‑up action.
