Sen. Michael Waddoups says Intermountain Health Care is too big. He's introduced legislation that calls for a task force to study nonprofit health-care companies. SB61, now in the midst of its fifth revision, also seeks to repeal IHC's tax-exempt status. News reports say the tax exemption would be taken away in 2008, although the task force could, conceivably, move to amend SB61 in a future legislative session.

Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, is correct that there needs to be a fact-based debate about IHC. Many questions deserve answers. For instance, does IHC occupy a monopoly position in Utah's health-care marketplace? What are the marketplace implications of its vertically integrated health insurance business? Do health-care consumers benefit from the arrangement? If IHC's tax-exempt status is repealed, how would people who can't afford health care be affected? Finally, is IHC too big?

A legislative task force would provide a reasonable forum for this discussion, which Waddoups concedes is not "minor, easy or simple." He's correct about that. But Waddoups overreaches on SB61 when he creates new law before lawmakers have ascertained that there is, indeed, a problem. Even though SB61 wouldn't go into effect until 2008, this would appear to be putting the cart before the horse.

Late last week, Sen. Patrice Arent, D-South Cottonwood, proposed a task force that would study the issue, no strings attached. Unfortunately, her Senate amendment failed on a 14-16 vote.

Lawmakers would do well to reconsider Arent's approach. It makes more sense. Writing any necessary legislation after an exhaustive study of IHC would produce a better product or outcome. As it stands, Waddoups is divining a "solution" before the issues have been established, much less understood. As of press time, SB61 was on hold on the Senate's third reading calendar. Until a more reasonable approach can be achieved, it should remain there.