Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Diabetes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate narrows diabetes‑coverage bill with physician‑prescription requirement; SB160 moves to third reading
Summary
Senators adopted an amendment tightening SB160 to require diabetes education and certain devices be provided "as prescribed by a physician" and to set an effective date; amendment passed and SB160 advanced to the third‑reading calendar (18‑7, 4 absent).
Senator Nielsen introduced Senate Bill 160, saying the bill would provide a health benefit for people with diabetes that did not previously exist in statute. "This bill is a provision for people with diabetes to give a a health benefit that's not at now present," the sponsor said.
Senator Allen offered an amendment (Amendment 4) that narrowed the bill’s scope by requiring education and devices be "provided or prescribed by a physician licensed under Title 58," and by setting an effective date of July 1, 1999. Allen said the changes were intended to prevent unregulated providers from establishing a mandated coverage that could be abused and to ensure oversight by licensed medical professionals; he noted some large insurers signaled support if the amendment were adopted.
The sponsor, Nielsen, endorsed the amendment, saying it tightened the bill, reduced potential costs and brought it under medical oversight. Other senators spoke both in favor (citing high diabetes prevalence and cost savings from better control) and against (calling the measure a mandate that could increase insurance costs and reduce choice). After debate the amendment was approved and the bill was passed to the third‑reading calendar; the presiding officer announced the tally as 18 yea, 7 nay, 4 absent.
Senators who publicly acknowledged conflicts of interest (self‑identified diabetics) explained that the changes were intended to balance patient needs with cost and oversight concerns.
