Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves 'mandate-light' option for insurance carriers in bid to expand market choices
Summary
Second substitute HB 168 passed 64–2 after sponsors described a new marketplace allowing carriers to offer products with fewer state mandates if they keep current mandated products available. Debate addressed impacts on rural hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers and timing relative to ongoing health reform work.
Representative James Dunnigan introduced the second substitute for House Bill 168, which the sponsor described as a measured step toward more flexible insurance products for individuals, small businesses and rural providers. "What this bill does is it requires an insurance company that does health insurance company that's going to do business in Utah to continue to provide the same types of policies as they are now subject to all the current mandates," Dunnigan said, then explained that carriers would be permitted to offer a new product set with fewer mandates so long as current mandated products remain available and actuarial soundness is maintained.
The substitute includes three principal changes as presented on the floor: (1) increased payment parity for rural hospitals so insurer PPO carriers pay a higher amount similar to HMO requirements; (2) a prohibition on balance-billing patients at rural hospitals covered by the Rural Health Care Act in return for higher insurer payments; and (3) a clarification that emergency-room coverage would be available in both urban and rural settings in the new marketplace for both PPOs and HMOs.
Floor debate raised stakeholder concerns. Representative Clark noted that ambulatory surgical centers had been engaged in discussions with the sponsor and that those centers were neutral on the bill after withdrawing prior opposition. Members questioned whether the measure pre-empted or conflicted with work by the newly created health-reform task force and whether allowing 'mandate-light' products might result in market segmentation that leaves some consumers under-protected.
The sponsor and supporters argued the bill levels the playing field by giving small employers and individuals access to product choices already available to large self-funded employers under federal ERISA rules. Representative Daniel framed the bill as "a modest step toward health reform" intended to increase affordability and network choice.
After debate and a successful previous‑question motion to end debate, the House passed the second substitute 64–2 and referred the bill to the Senate. Sponsors and supporters noted that the bill requires carriers to maintain a product that complies with current mandates and to ensure actuarial soundness for new products; regulatory implementation by the Insurance Department was expected to follow if the bill becomes law.
