Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telehealth topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House narrows scope of proposed Telehealth Commission after debate over government role
Summary
Lawmakers advanced changes to House Bill 72 to create a Utah Telehealth Commission aimed at coordinating telehealth services; members accepted a substitute amendment limiting the commission's authority to establish networks unless requested, and debated sunset dates and fee provisions for a largely private-sector panel.
Representative David L. Hogue, sponsor of House Bill 72, told the House the bill would create a Utah Telehealth Commission of 11 members largely drawn from private industry to coordinate telehealth services and support rural providers. "It very much benefits the rural areas," Hogue said, describing telehealth as a cost-saving tool that helps communities that cannot easily reach urban medical centers.
Opponents raised concerns the commission's language could allow creation of a government-run telehealth network and permit the commission to set fees that might compete with existing private providers. Representative Lockhart argued the bill's lines authorizing a network and fee-setting should be deleted to avoid governmental competition: "I'm concerned with the government setting up a network that it would be in competition with private enterprise," Lockhart said.
Supporters, including Representative Carlson and Representative King, said the commission would help tie disparate local efforts together and expand participation for smaller rural hospitals and clinics. "This hopefully will give them the opportunity to participate in a larger network," Carlson said, urging defeat of the deletion amendment.
A substitute amendment, offered as a compromise, inserted the phrase "as requested" after the word "may" in the section describing the commission's authority. Sponsors said the change makes the commission permissive: it can establish network services only if parties request assistance. After initial voice calls and a roll call when the chair was in doubt, the substitute amendment passed.
Members also debated a repeal (sunset) date for the act. Representative Bennion proposed a brief sunset of Dec. 31, 2001; others recommended longer review windows. A substitute motion set the repeal effective date at July 1, 2005; that amendment passed in a later procedural sequence. The bill was subsequently circled for further consideration.
Where the record records fee language and potential powers for the commission, sponsors emphasized the panel's coordinating role and limited state control. Several members urged careful monitoring of the commission's operations and the opportunity for the Legislature to revisit the structure if it proved to duplicate private services.
