Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate rejects diabetes coverage mandate after questions on mandates and funding
Summary
Senate Bill 1 60, a proposal to require certain insurers to cover diabetes‑related care, failed on a close roll call after debate about mandates, ERISA preemption and whether state employee plans should be subject to the same requirement.
Senate Bill 1 60, which would have required specified insurers to provide coverage related to diabetes care, failed on the Senate floor after a lengthy debate about mandates and fiscal responsibilities.
Senator Nielsen, sponsor of the bill, said the measure would likely reduce long‑term costs by preventing hospitalization through improved outpatient care. Critics repeatedly questioned whether the bill inappropriately imposed mandates on private insurers while state plans (PEHP) and ERISA plans would remain exempt. "ERISA plans, which cover about 60% of the state, are not required to [comply] because they're under federal law," Senator Stevenson said; Senator Nielsen acknowledged that ERISA plans could not be compelled by the State.
Senator Haggard asked why insurers would not adopt low‑cost preventive measures voluntarily if they believed them cost‑effective; supporters pointed to prior voluntary adoptions and urged a federal‑state policy review. After roll call, the clerk recorded the final tally and the bill failed on the floor.
