Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Children Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate advances children’s coverage bill to third reading after hours of debate
Summary
Senators debated House Bill 137 — a state‑administered program aimed at insuring uninsured children — and voted to place the measure on the third‑reading calendar after back‑and‑forth on financing, eligibility and long‑term fiscal risk.
Senators on the Utah State Senate floor advanced House Bill 137 to the third‑reading calendar on March 2, 1998, after a daylong debate over scope, funding and eligibility.
Sponsor Senator Holmgren framed the bill as a targeted program for uninsured children and defended the Health Department’s role, saying the proposal “is a very, very beneficial program” that resulted from an RFP and committee review and was written to exclude children already covered by Medicaid or employer plans. Holmgren said the plan aims to reach “considerable” numbers of children and provided senators with explanatory sheets on projected enrollment.
Supporters pointed to available tobacco‑related funds and state matches. “I’m going to vote for this bill because it is going to help out our children in Utah,” Senator Jones said, noting the state expects to work with more than $30 million in available funds. Senator Nielsen, who helped draft the bill on the Health Policy Commission, said the program would be administered by state personnel rather than through Medicaid and argued it would be less expensive per child than a Medicaid option.
Opponents raised policy and fiscal concerns. Senator Taylor quoted a national article to argue the measure could be a step toward broader federal‑style coverage and said he would vote against it on principle, while other senators warned the program could become an ongoing fiscal obligation once one‑time tobacco funds run out.
Senators also sought technical clarifications. When asked whether abortion is a covered benefit, the sponsor replied the language is limited to procedures necessary to save the life of the mother and referenced federal law language as written in the bill.
After discussion the chair called the question on whether House Bill 137 should be read for a third time. The roll call produced 23 ayes, 3 nays and 3 absent; the clerk announced the bill “passes to the third‑reading calendar.”
Next steps: House Bill 137 will return for debate and final passage at third reading, where supporters and critics said they expect further debate on long‑term funding and implementation details.
