Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Claims topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes medical-claims amendment; sponsors pledge further work on secondary-payer disputes
Summary
First-substitute S.B. 69 establishes procedures intended to ensure prompt, reasonable payment to medical providers; senators praised the bill but acknowledged it does not fully resolve disputes between primary and secondary insurers and pledged work next session.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Senate unanimously approved first-substitute S.B. 69, a medical-claims amendment intended to speed and standardize payments to health-care providers, after sponsors and colleagues debated a remaining concern about how the bill would address primary-and-secondary insurer disputes.
Senator Blackham, sponsor of the measure, told the Senate the bill establishes a process so claims are paid "in a reasonable manner" to providers and said the bill has the support of the Utah Medical Association and insurers. "It has the support of the UMA. It has the support of the insurance industry," the sponsor said.
Senator Valentine detailed a personal example of how family medical bills became stuck between carriers when two policies each claimed primary status. "Last year, we had some medical expenses with a member of my family, And we have 2 insurance," Valentine said, explaining that disputes over primary responsibility left providers unpaid and risked harm to patients’ credit histories.
Valentine proposed a narrow fix (a deletion of the single word "directly") but declined to force the amendment because, he said, it could derail a largely consensus bill. He told colleagues he would pursue the issue next session to address the "primary/secondary" carrier gap without derailing the broader prompt-payment reforms.
Senators who voiced agreement urged follow-up work. Senator Allen said he supported the bill despite the unresolved issue. Following the exchange, the chamber voted and the clerk recorded 27 aye votes and no nays (two senators absent), sending the first substitute to the House for further action.
Why it matters: The bill aims to reduce delays in provider payments, an area of frequent complaint from medical providers; however, the floor debate made clear that the measure does not fully solve certain coordination problems between insurers, an issue sponsors signaled they will address in future sessions.
Next steps: S.B. 69 will be transmitted to the House; senators pledged to work on the remaining insurer-coordination problem in the next legislative session.
