Health-care bill wouldn't take effect for 3 years

Any changes to the regulations of health-care organizations may not take effect for three years, before which legislators will study exactly what, if anything, needs to be changed.

The Senate tentatively approved a revised SB61, which will still threaten to force nonprofit hospitals — only Intermountain Health Care in Utah — to get rid of their insurance business. Before that happens on July 1, 2008, however, a task force will be created to study all the issues involving nonprofit medical companies and to suggest actual changes to the regulations.

SB61 will also incorporate another contentious health-care bill, SB34, which would require health management organizations to reimburse doctors who are not part of the plan. That bill, which previously passed the Senate, was recalled from the House by senators without debate Friday.

By leaving the potential loss of hospitals' insurance business in the bill, sponsoring Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said he hopes that IHC will come forward with all the information needed by the task force.

"It keeps their feet to the fire and makes everybody deal aboveboard," Waddoups said. "This is not a minor, easy or simple issue. It will take a lot of delving to get the answers."

Sen. Patrice Arent, R-Murray, said that she was concerned about "determining the conclusion" of the issue by passing laws. Instead, she pushed an amendment, which failed 14-16, to create only a task force, without any additional regulations.

"We need to do this task force, but we shouldn't put laws onto the books before it starts, even if they don't take effect" until 2008, she said.

As for including SB34, Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Valley, that bill's sponsor, said that including the "any willing provider" debate was something that should be part of the task force study.

"It just seems to make sense," Buttars said. "The big cry has been to study this thing. . . . It doesn't make sense to force one on and send the other to a three-year committee."

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. wanted the bills to go to an interim study committee because he still has questions about the bill, he said during his monthly televised press conference on KUED Channel 7.

"Personally, I'd like to know what this means to the average consumer in terms of health-care costs, in terms of insurance implications," he said. "I'd like to know what the job loss could potentially be. I'd like to know who some of the buyers might be for an asset that they were to spin off."

Huntsman said opening up the marketplace "regardless of what insurance program you happen to be on, I think is probably good for consumers."

But, he said, if he couldn't answer the questions he had, the bills need to be studied further. "We can then make a more informed decision going forward. IHC might have some of their own business decisions that they have made by then."

The governor said, "We need to let rational thinking prevail. And at the end of the day, we ought to be prepared to do that which is for the consumer in an environment where we see ever-escalating health-care costs."

---

E-mail: jloftin@desnews.com; lisa@desnews.com