SALT LAKE CITY — Gov. Gary Herbert's Healthy Utah plan for Medicaid expansion passed the Senate Wednesday, but House Speaker Greg Hughes declared that it won't get a hearing in the House.

"I don't want a topic to become political pageantry and we're just going to hear it to hear it," Hughes told reporters. "I have to believe that it is viable and I've not seen enough support in the House to believe it has any remote chance of passage."

The speaker said the House "is done with the proposal Healthy Utah" and may not have time to consider any alternatives before the session ends March 12 because of other issues that have yet to be dealt with, including an increase in the gas tax.

"We feel like we have delved into this thoroughly," Hughes said, referring to several Republican caucus meetings. "At some point, you have to move to these other critical issues that we have."

Reaction to Hughes' decision

The governor, who has already scaled back Healthy Utah, said in a statement that Hughes' decision not to allow a House vote on SB164 "is alarming and should be of significant concern to citizens across our state."

Herbert said Utahns deserve accountability from their representatives, "particularly when their inaction is, by default, a vote to give the federal government $800 million per year of Utah taxpayer money while getting almost nothing in return.”

House Minority Leader Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, said the bill, which authorizes a two-year program to use federal funds available under the Affordable Care Act to help low-income Utahns obtain health insurance, should get a hearing.

"This is part of the legislative process that all bills go through, and to unilaterally stop an effort that has so much support and could save so many lives is irresponsible," King said.

The minority leader said Hughes' "refusal to allow even a committee hearing for the most important matter we have dealt with in years at the Legislature causes me to ask, ‘Mr. Speaker, what are you afraid of?’”

RyLee Curtis, senior policy analyst at the Utah Health Policy Project, noted that House Republican leaders have repeatedly said doing nothing is not an option.

"The House has now been delivered a bill that has the strong support of business leaders, health care organizations, and a majority of Utah voters," she said. "This unprecedented level of community support, gubernatorial support, and lack of any other viable options makes it unreasonable for the House to oppose consideration."

Should lawmakers not take action on Medicaid expansion this session, Utahns earning less than 100 percent of the federal poverty rate in the so-called coverage gap would continue to receive no help with their heath care costs.

SB164 in the Senate

The Senate reluctantly approved the bill, 17-11. It would provide access to coverage to some 126,000 Utahns earning less than 138 percent of the federal poverty rate to qualify for the most federal funding available.

Sen. Brian Shiozawa, R-Cottonwood Heights, called his measure a starting point and said he hopes talks can continue with the House. He said it might be the most important and controversial bill lawmakers deal with not only this session but in their tenure.

"We know how big of a deal this is," he said.

Related:

Lawmakers, governor still far apart on Medicaid expansion

In early February, Republican lawmakers were already trying to sell the Obama administration on their limited plans for Medicaid expansion — even as Gov. Gary Herbert continued to push his Healthy Utah alternative.

Some senators had a hard time voting for SB164 but said they didn't see any other way to deal with a problem not of their making.

"We're left with some very bad choices," said Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo. "I wish I could vote against this."

Under Healthy Utah, the state would make a one-time payment of $36 million for the two-year pilot program. The federal government would return $944 million in tax dollars to the state over two years, according to the governor's office.

Sen. Deidre Henderson, R-Spanish Fork, said she couldn't support the state allocating one-time money for an ongoing program that has an uncertain future and undetermined costs.

"We have to front the money to get the free money," Henderson said. "We cannot afford this kind of free money. I don't know how we're going to pay for it long term."

Bramble said Healthy Utah is not an ongoing program because SB164 repeals it after two years and the Legislature would have to decide whether to continue it. He said it's appropriate to fund it with one-time money.

But Henderson said it's not easy to undo a program once it's in place.

"In two years, it's going to be very, very difficult to say we're not going to do this anymore," Henderson said.

An alternative to Healthy Utah that would cover only medically frail low-income Utahns, sponsored by Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden, is expected to be voted on by the Senate soon.

Hughes said that proposal doesn't have enough support among House Republicans to merit a hearing, either.

House Majority Leader Jim Dunnigan, R-Taylorsville, had little to say about the possibility of a House alternative for Medicaid expansion. Hughes said simply he would "never say never."

Related topics