Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prescription Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate rejects bill requiring insurance coverage for FDA‑approved prescription contraceptives
Summary
Senate Bill 31, sponsored by Senator Julander to require prescription contraceptive coverage by health plans, was debated at length over cost, scope and specific drug inclusions and failed on a 14–15 roll‑call vote after extended floor debate.
Senator Janice Julander, sponsor of Senate Bill 31, told the Senate the measure was about equity: "This bill would require any health care plan that covers prescription drugs to cover all FDA approved prescription contraceptions and related outpatient services." She cited state survey data and a fiscal estimate of about $3.08 per enrollee per year to argue the measure would be low‑cost while improving women’s access to preventive care.
The bill drew extended questioning and debate. Senators asked whether the measure would include any drug that later received FDA approval, specifically raising the example of the French drug identified in the debate as U‑486. Senator Julander and other supporters said they did not believe such a drug was FDA‑approved and offered to add exclusions if the chamber directed it; opponents said the bill’s broad language threatens to raise premiums, could leave small employers and self‑insured plans out of coverage improvements, and would impose costs on those least able to pay.
Senator Montgomery cited fiscal and timing concerns and a long list of business groups opposing the measure, while Senator Ed Allen and other supporters described it as a 30‑year overdue correction of discrimination in health coverage. After debate and a call of the Senate, senators recorded their votes. The roll call returned 14 ayes and 15 nays; "Senate Bill 31 has 14 aye votes, 15 nay votes, and the bill fails," President Beatty announced.
The Senate transcript shows the argument split largely along concerns about mandates and insurance‑market effects versus public‑health and equity rationales. No amendment adopting a drug‑specific exclusion was adopted on the floor; sponsors said they would consider technical fixes in future drafting.
