From Deseret News archives:
Provider law pits patient access against costs
SB34, after receiving votes of 22-7 on Tuesday, returns to the Senate today to determine if it will move onto the House.
Unlike other controversial issues, the lines demarcating support or opposition on the measure by Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, are not so clearly defined — at least as far as the Senate vote goes.
Two dentists in the Senate in favor of the bill were joined by Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper — who stressed this bill will not hurt employers.
That assertion came despite opposition already voiced by industry associations who claim small employers especially will be forced to drop insurance coverage because of anticipated increases in premiums.
Stephenson, a self-described supporter of business, disagreed.
"The system is broke and out of control," he said. "I do not believe costs will rise as a result of SB34."
The measure, if passed, would allow residents to seek health care or services from any provider — doctor or hospital — that is willing to accept 95 percent of their insurance plan's reimbursement rate. That "willing" provider would not be able to demand payment from the patient for the balance of the bill owed.
Seven states already have broad Any Willing Provider laws. Kentucky's laws were challenged but ultimately upheld in 2003 by a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which held the laws did not impose prohibitions or requirements on providers.
"It means any willing provider," stressed Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden, who works as a pediatric dentist.
"We are going to gain as many patients as we are going to lose."
While some lawmakers emphasized Tuesday they are in favor of "access," they are unsure if SB34 is the right pathway to achieve that.
"Nobody knows for sure where this will take us," said Sen. Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City. "I'm scared to death of this."
But Sens. Pete Knudson, R-Brigham City, and Christensen said they have seen for too long patients whose access to health care is impeded by inflexible insurance plans.
"Out in rural Utah this is an issue," Knudson, an orthodontist, said. "It is a big problem."
Christensen, who said he is one of two specialists in his area, has a patient from Utah Valley because he is a paneled provider for a particular insurance plan. Conversely, he said he has many would-be Ogden patients he has to send elsewhere because he's not on their insurance plan.
