Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prescription Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves prescription monitoring database after floor debate on privacy and penalties
Summary
The Utah Senate passed SB42 to create a controlled‑substance prescription database intended to help law enforcement and reduce diversion; floor debate focused on access controls, cost and privacy, and sponsors cited stiff penalties for unauthorized disclosures.
Salt Lake City — The Utah State Senate on Feb. 1, 1995, approved Senate Bill 42 to establish a controlled‑substance prescription database designed to track prescriptions and aid law enforcement efforts to curb abuse and diversion.
Senator Robert Montgomery, the bill sponsor, said the system is meant to give law enforcement ‘‘information and tracking for the law enforcement officers to easily and readily obtain the information as to what pharmacies, what physicians, and what patients are abusing the system.’’ He told colleagues that unauthorized access would be punished as a third‑degree felony, with a maximum fine of $5,000 and up to five years in prison, and an additional five‑year enhancement where a firearm is used.
The measure drew sustained questioning from senators concerned about technical and privacy safeguards. Senator Steiner asked whether the system could restrict a physician to accessing only his or her own patients; Montgomery replied that rules and electronic safeguards would be written to limit access and that developing electronic signature technology would further tighten access controls.
Senator Holmgren, who noted an existing Medicaid drug utilization review that has worked without intrusive privacy breaches, urged support and said the technology ‘‘has made it slow that it just plain works’’ to reduce illegitimate drug use. Senator Moran asked about Freedom of Information Act implications and whether third parties could access the databank; the sponsor replied they could not and that access would require a stated, legitimate reason.
Montgomery said the Utah Pharmaceutical Association supports the bill and that pharmacies would bear only minor costs; physicians in remote areas could obtain information by phone if they chose not to invest in a modem for electronic access.
On privacy, Montgomery told the Senate that the attorney general's office had issued an opinion concluding the system would not violate individual privacy and that the bill includes provisions, penalties and department rules intended to protect confidentiality.
After floor debate the Senate called the question and passed SB42; the roll call was reported later as 27 ayes, 0 nays, with 2 absent. The bill will be transmitted to the House for further consideration.
What happens next: The bill, as passed, directs rulemaking and system design that will determine specific access controls, reporting procedures and implementation costs; senators said those details would be addressed in department rules and by later administrative procedures.
