Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances health‑insurance high‑risk pool after split debate; House bill 94 passes
Summary
Following major floor debate over funding approach, the Senate passed House Bill 94 to address the actuarial shortfall in Utah’s high‑risk insurance pool; sponsors clashed over earmarking premium‑tax revenue versus annual legislative review.
Salt Lake City — In a sustained floor exchange on Feb. 26, the Utah Senate debated competing approaches to shore up the Utah Comprehensive Health Insurance Pool (HIP) and ultimately passed House Bill 94 after reconsideration.
Senator Davis argued for a permanent funding fix, proposing that a portion of the state’s insurance‑premium tax (cited in debate as roughly $110,000,000 annually) be used to make the pool actuarially sound; he said the fund currently faced an actuarial shortfall (about $14,000,000 this year) and that his proposal would add $10,000,000 as part of a larger $32,000,000 adjustment referenced for FY2005. "We need to make the pool actuarially sound so we don't have to come back every year and try to find the money," Davis said.
Senator Walker, supporting a different approach, urged maintaining legislative flexibility and implementing the task force’s recommendations to set an annual base budget, monitor actuarial metrics and avoid a permanent earmark she said could obligate future legislatures. "I think we need to keep our flexibility," Walker said, urging an annual review that would allow adjustments as actuaries and markets change.
The Senate circled and uncircled the companion measures (first substitute SB164 and House Bill 94), held roll‑call votes on both and ultimately reconsidered to place HB94 on the third‑reading calendar. After further roll calls and an opportunity for absent senators to vote, the Senate recorded HB94 as passing by roll call (20 ayes, 4 nays, 5 absent) and returned the measure to the House for further consideration.
The debate focused on competing public‑policy choices — permanent earmarking of insurance tax revenue for HIP vs. an annual legislative budgeting and oversight approach — and senators emphasized actuarial soundness and continuity of portability protections for high‑risk individuals. Further implementation details and potential budget tradeoffs will surface during follow‑up budget work and the task force’s continuing review.
The Senate also circled SB164 (the Senate companion) but did not advance it as the chamber concluded action by advancing HB94 to the House.
