Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety.prescription Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances bill to create statewide prescription database amid privacy and cost concerns
Summary
Senate debate over SB42 centered on a proposed statewide controlled-substance prescription database to curb 'doctor shopping' and aid law enforcement; sponsors highlighted benefits for identifying abuse and linking pharmacies, while opponents warned of privacy risks and questioned the fiscal note. The chamber recorded 17 ayes, 6 nays, 6 absent on the motion to read SB42 for a third time.
Senator Robert Montgomery moved the Senate to advance Senate Bill 42, which would create an electronic controlled-substance prescription database to track narcotics prescriptions across pharmacies and prescribers. Montgomery said the system is intended to detect “doctor shopping” and “pharmacy shopping” and to help law enforcement and treatment referrals.
“Sixty percent of the drug abuse in the state of Utah is as a result of prescription, abuse,” Montgomery told colleagues while outlining the bill’s definitions, advisory board membership and data elements to be collected, including prescriber name, prescription and fill dates and quantities. He described penalties in his amendments: “Any person who knowingly or intentionally releases any information from the database is guilty of a third degree felony,” and noted a fine not to exceed $5,000 for improper disclosure.
Supporters said the database reflects systems already used in other states and that most pharmacies already keep computerized records; Montgomery said the division or a contracted operator could host the database and that departments such as Public Safety and Health have hardware and software that could be used to reduce start-up costs.
Opponents and several questioners raised practical and civil‑liberties concerns. One senator asked whether the measure amounted to “big brother” and warned about who might obtain sensitive prescription histories if data were misused. Senators also pressed how the bill would handle family members picking up prescriptions and whether positive identification requirements could create barriers for elderly or incapacitated patients; sponsors responded that pharmacies already require positive identification for narcotics and that the bill codifies that practice while allowing verification by telephone or written authorization in limited cases.
Fiscal concerns were raised about the bill’s start-up estimate. A senator noted a fiscal-analyst estimate of approximately $246,000 and urged exploring whether an existing state database could be repurposed to reduce costs. Montgomery said negotiations with the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Health suggested existing hardware and software could be used and urged colleagues to prioritize the bill given its public‑safety aims.
After extended questions and discussion, the Senate moved SB42 to the third-reading calendar; the clerk recorded a vote of 17 ayes, 6 nays and 6 absent on the motion to read the bill for the third time. The transcript records the recorded tally but does not show final enactment or further amendments on the floor within this session.
