Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate sends 'swing-out' access bill to House after tense debate over 95% reimbursement
Summary
The Utah Senate approved Second Substitute Senate Bill 34, allowing patients to seek care outside managed‑care panels with outside reimbursements set at 95% of panel rates; the measure passed 19–8 after extended debate over costs, provider incentives and unintended effects.
Second Substitute Senate Bill 34, a measure to let insured patients seek care outside managed‑care panels while requiring plans to reimburse outside providers at 95% of contracted panel rates, passed the Utah Senate on Feb. 11 and was referred to the House.
Senator D. Chris Butters, the bill sponsor, framed the measure as a patients’ access bill and said it was driven by patient demand from several clinics: "I really believe this is a true patient's bill," he told colleagues on the floor. Supporters said the option would expand access in parts of the state where panel shortages limit timely care.
Opponents warned of unintended consequences for market contracting and insurance costs. "This is a physician's bill," said Senator Howell, arguing the high outside‑of‑panel reimbursement would reduce the incentive for doctors to remain on panels and could "abrogate a private contract between an insurance company, the employer, and the insured." He warned the change could harm HMOs and PPOs and drive up costs.
Other senators pressed fiscal concerns. Senator Hickman cited the fiscal analyst's note and said, "Will cost go up? You're darn right," noting state and local premiums could rise if the reimbursement shift broadens. Senator Jenkins, speaking as both an employer and purchaser, said the bill could dilute employers’ ability to bid and contract for care.
Lawmakers debated an amendment to lower the outside reimbursement from 95% to 85%; proponents of the change said a lower rate would preserve panel incentives, while opponents called the amendment a "poison pill" that would gut the bill. The amendment failed on the floor.
Several senators said the issue deserved more study and suggested interim work or a task force once the bill reached the House. Despite lingering questions about cost and market effects, the Senate recorded a final vote of 19 yes, 8 no, with 2 absent, and referred the measure to the House for further action.
What happens next: SB 34 will be considered by the House; senators on both sides urged further study and monitoring of premium and access impacts if the bill becomes law.
