Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Medicaid topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates Medicaid expansion for aged, blind and disabled; bill "circled" for further work
Summary
Senators debated SB 59, a bill to expand Medicaid coverage to aged, blind and disabled Utahns, with supporters pointing to federal matching funds and cost savings and opponents citing lack of an identified funding source; the Senate voted to "circle" (delay) the bill pending funding details.
SALT LAKE CITY — Lawmakers on the Utah State Senate on Jan. 30 debated a proposal to expand Medicaid eligibility for aged, blind and disabled residents, but left the measure unresolved.
Senator John Holmgren, sponsor of SB 59, told colleagues the bill "would expand the program to age blind and disabled" and described it as a measured step toward broader health coverage that could use federal matching funds to cover three-quarters of program costs. Holmgren said the bill had been vetted by a task force and an interim committee and urged senators to allow it to take its place in the budgeting process.
Opponents pressed the fiscal question. Senator McAllister said the bill "is dated into the future" and warned that enacting coverage without a clear funding plan would leave future legislatures pressured to appropriate money. "This program is clearly the camel's nose in a tent," McAllister said, explaining he would oppose the bill because of the likely funding obligation it would create. Other senators asked for specific cost estimates and whether the measure would bind future legislatures to new spending.
Senator Shepherd, who served on the task force, framed the proposal as part of a larger effort to reduce cost shifting to hospitals and employers: adding people to Medicaid, he said, could lower emergency-room usage and "is just one part of many, many health care reforms we need to have."
Members repeatedly returned to funding mechanics. Holmgren acknowledged the bill as written lacked an explicit effective-date tied to an appropriation and apologized for the omission, saying he expected the measure could "come on as soon as funds are available" and that he would correct the language before further action.
After extended discussion about scope, waivers and budget timing, a motion to "circle" the bill (hold it for amendment and further information) was moved and carried. The Senate did not take a final passage vote on SB 59 during the session recorded in the transcript.
Next steps: sponsors said they would supply cost information and revised language; the bill was held for further consideration and possible amendment before a future vote.
