One issue that broke last week dealt with our government records laws and the way we handle electronic records and various technologies that didn’t exist when the law was originally enacted. HB477, Government Records Amendments, was proposed with about a week left in the session. It moved through the two chambers quickly, which led to concern by media outlets and citizens that things were happening too fast.

After the bill passed, we had a weekend to think it over, and the Legislature decided we needed a little more time to find the appropriate balance on this issue and recalled it from the governor’s desk for some amendments. The bill now has a delayed effective date and a task force has been appointed to hear concerns from all sides.

The governor has promised to call the Legislature back into a special session in June where we will implement changes suggested by the task force. One of the limitations of our 45-day session is that sometimes in our zeal to finish our work by the end of session deadline, we get ahead of ourselves and the will of the people. One of the great parts about out system is that we can always reconsider our actions and change our minds upon further investigation. This compromise will allow us the proper time and provide the proper venue to give this important issue the consideration it deserves.

The budget for the coming fiscal year is always one of the last things to be finalized before we close the session for the year. Weighing in at nearly $12 billion, this year’s budget experience was a much happier one than in past years. It is my very sincere hope that we have reached the end of budget cuts due to the recession.

We started the session staring down a $313 million shortfall. After revised revenue estimates came through in late February, we were able to shrink the gap to $50 million. Though it still boggles my mind a bit to cheer a $50 million dollar budget gap, I know there are legislators across the nation who would gladly trade Utah’s deficit for their own. The 7 percent across the board cuts that we thought would be necessary at the beginning of the session have now been pared down to 1 percent, although some departments might be slightly higher or lower.

In our new budget, we will be able to fully fund public education including the projected growth of approximately 14,000 new students. This is the first time that this growth has been funded in three years due to the recession. Higher education will also do better than in past years, with only a 1.6 percent cut to their budget. Medicaid spending, unfortunately, continues to increase. That budget will grow by 4.1 percent as we attempt to fund ongoing programs as well as new caseload growth.

This is an area of the budget that is growing so fast we can hardly keep up with it. As the federal health care laws start taking affect, this budget could sky rocket even more. The Legislature is starting a process this year to look at Medicaid reform in order to control Medicaid spending in the future.

The budget process, like the entire legislative process, can be a bit noisy and boisterous at times. There are always some differences of opinion of what should be funded or done and to what extent. Compromise is a big part of the process and this year is no exception.

However, we can all agree on the importance of a balanced budget and that everyone is trying to do what they think best; that gets us through the worst of disagreements on how to spend our limited resources.

Overall, things are much better financially this year than the last two. We all hope that the economy can continue to grow and allow us the opportunity to keep funding education and the other state programs that are so critical to our communities.

If the economy does improve, the challenge will be to continue our fiscal conservative attitude and not allow state government to grow as rapidly as it did during the years before the financial balloon popped.

We can all agree that returning to a time of budget cuts brought on by speculation and overspending is something we never want to do again. Thank you all for the opportunity to represent you on the Hill this session.

The Legislature considers nearly 1,000 bills every year in the short timeframe of 45 days. I employ a range of strategies to help me get a sense of how the communities I represent feel about the issues of the day. Obviously not everyone is united on a course of action, so one of the most important factors I consider when casting a vote is the feedback from my pre-session legislative surveys. Each year, before the session begins, I compile a list of questions on the hot topics that are expected to come before the Legislature and ask my constituents to let me know what they think. This year I asked about topics ranging from possible budget cuts to liquor licenses to immigration reform. I would like to thank everyone that took the time to complete and return the survey.

Several of the survey questions dealt with difficult budget questions. Though our budget picture is much rosier than a year ago, we knew before the session started that we would have to either make additional budget cuts or raise taxes in order to cover our existing budget needs, let alone fund any growth or inflation. When I asked you to rank your highest budget priorities, the two highest ranked items were fixing the deficit and funding growth in public education. Our latest budget proposal presented last Tuesday included funding for the 14,700 new students expected to enter Utah schools next year and sought to ensure we used on-going revenue sources for on-going programs so as to avoid cuts when one-time sources ran dry. In short, we put together a balanced budget.

Another question asked whether taxes and corresponding services should increase, decrease or remain the same. Just over 60 percent of respondents said they wanted taxes and services to remain at current levels. I have worked to resist any calls for tax increase knowing that the majority of my constituents are comfortable with the existing levels and our fragile economic recovery could be threatened with any increased tax burden on families.

Another hot topic this year has been proposals to change our alcohol laws. I compiled a list of the most probable proposals and asked for respondents to mark all the proposals they supported. I received a wide range of answers to these questions, but the two proposals that received the highest number of votes involved more strict use of driver interlock devices after a DUI and scanning driver’s licenses to verify the age of those patronizing bars, taverns, and clubs. There are several bills this year dealing with DUI penalties and strengthening the provisions related to inter-lock devices. In addition, Sen. John Valentine, R-Provo, has proposed a major overhaul of our alcohol laws looking at items including the number of restaurant liquor licenses and enhanced enforcement on age restrictions and inspections.

I asked three different questions on the subject of immigration reform that reflected various proposals by legislators. Though the questions dealt with very different approaches to our broken immigration system, by your responses, you seemed to like having all options on the table. Eighty-six percent of respondents said they supported enforcement-based immigration laws, 85 percent supported the development of a guest-worker program, and 71 percent supported the repeal of in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. Each of these issues is the subject of several individual bills and one comprehensive immigration bill that attempts to take pieces from every approach. The results tell me that my constituents believe these issues need a multifaceted response from the state and no one bill is the answer.

We take our charge very seriously to represent you and to reflect the values and beliefs of our communities. Don’t be afraid to reach out and let your legislators know how you feel about the issues of the day. We can’t represent you if we don’t know your views.

Up until this point, we have been using estimates from the third quarter of 2010. These new numbers give us a much better look at how the past year closed and how the New Year has begun.

The release of the revenue estimates has been a time of apprehension the past few years. Revenue projections have been failing, at times rapidly, since this same week in 2008. Few things are more disheartening at this point in the session than learning you’ll have to go back into budget cutting mode after having already endured weeks of painful budget cutting meetings. It was one year ago today that I wrote my traditional week five revenue article that I announced that we had finally stopped falling; the revenue projects had come back as predicted, a sign the recession had at least hit bottom.

This year the numbers are much more positive and show we are indeed on the track to financial recovery. Our first estimates showed that we were short $313 million of meeting our current state liabilities without taking into account inflation or growth. The numbers projected only $216 million in new revenue, making for a $97 million net shortfall. This week’s estimates show $47 million in additional revenue growth making our total growth $263 million. It is interesting to note that the $47 million breaks down into $13 million in the general fund and $34 million in the education fund.

The lion’s share of the growth is coming as personal income tax, which is dedicated to education by our state constitution. This means Utah families are once again starting to see increases in their personal bottom line. These numbers are all ongoing revenue sources. We also saw an increase of $31 million in one-time funding sources that can be used to temporarily prop up programs while we await the more dependable growth in ongoing revenue.

When you do the math of the ongoing shortfall, combined with the new on-going estimates, we are left about $50 million short of meeting our ongoing needs. This is a much rosier picture than the one we faced just a week ago, but it doesn’t mean that all our problems are over. In addition to the now $50 million shortfall, we must also consider growth and inflation in Medicaid and public education which will require roughly $120 million combined in additional funding. Obviously, we still have some tough financial decisions to make in the last few weeks of the session, but we will be able to restore many of the cuts that were passed in base budgets a few weeks ago.

I’m excited to finally see our economy returning to a growth stage. The past few years of deep budget cuts have taken their toll on each and every section on the state budget and deeply impacted the psyche of every legislator when it comes to spending decisions. I feel that the lessons, though hard, have been valuable and helpful in our effort to streamline government. I commit, we will continue to be fiscally conservative in our budget spending so we can continue to experience economic recovery and growth.

The easy part of government is to identify the problem — the hard part is to identify a solution. Whether you agree or disagree with the various immigration reform bills proposed this year, one needs to respect the individuals that have dedicated their time to generating possible solutions. It isn’t an easy job to imagine something better and then draft laws to make it so.

Many of the illegal immigrants that make their way to our state come with a desire to work, but not all do. Some come with more nefarious purposes in mind. The various immigration bills proposed this year all address the problem from a different perspective, but I believe that tackling it from the criminal element perspective offers the best solution. In 2009, I sponsored an immigration bill that took a hard stance on the crime committed by illegal immigrants.

The bill created a multi-agency strike force to combat violent criminal offenses related to illegal immigration. At the time the bill was passed, it was much like the slate of immigration bills proposed this year; one in a wide range of possible ideas meant to tackle a delicate and difficult problem. Two years later, we can now see that this idea has proven to be an effective tool and one the state can easily employ.

When we crafted this bill, our idea was to go after the worst of the worst: the people who were entering our country illegally for the purpose of selling drugs, committing identity theft, human trafficking and committing violent crimes.

I worked together with the Utah Attorney General’s Office to create the first SECURE Strike Force to make our communities safer. In less than two years, the strike force has defied all expectations by opening 250 criminal cases, making 146 arrests which have resulted in 61 state and federal felony convictions with several cases still making their way through the court system.

Just last week, the strike force made two major busts dealing with a piracy ring. Police arrested ten illegal aliens and seized more than 29,000 pirated CDs and DVDs. The nine-month investigation seized discs worth over $345,000 and two of the men arrested face charges of aggravated re-entry into the country. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, piracy causes $12.5 billion in losses to the U.S. economy each year and results in the loss of 70,000 jobs.

My hope for future immigration bills is that they build on the results we are seeing from the strike force bill.

One of the many worries about immigration reform is that some pieces of legislation might make immigrant communities afraid of police and therefore even more vulnerable to abuse. Since the strike force targets only serious felony offenses, it has gained the respect and cooperation of members of the Hispanic community because they know that their neighborhoods are safer when you take felons off the streets.

There is an active public policy debate about whether the states should handle illegal immigration in the face of federal inaction, but the criminal issue is very much in the jurisdiction of the states and something we can and should tackle for the good of Utah.

As we evaluate the immigration bills before us this year, I will be looking for proposals that are similar to the strike force bill that will provide results, can immediately be implemented, and will take more undocumented immigrants with criminal intent off our streets.

While the idea of a safety net program for the poor and needy is admirable, the simple truth is the enormous costs of the program are overwhelming all the states, including Utah.

The hard reality of our current budget situation is that our state revenues have shrunk while demand for state services has grown and grown dramatically in certain sectors. Public education, which has long occupied the top spending spot in our budget, is now being challenged by Medicaid. Right now Medicaid requires 13 percent of the state budget, but it is projected to grow almost exponentially to 36 percent of the total budget by 2020.

This growth rate is three times faster than the overall growth of state revenue. Unemployment rates due to the recession are causing Medicaid rolls to expand to never before seen highs and medical costs have never been higher. All this is compounded by new requirements in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (federal health care reform bill) passed last year have only exacerbated the growth problems by greatly expanding the program while leaving states with fewer options for managing costs. We can’t spend more than we have.

The end result is a program that does resemble the “Blob” gobbling up all the resources in sight.

It is not at all hard to imagine a time when the costs of Medicaid expand beyond our ability to pay for them. The program is like a ticking time bomb that will eventually blow up and bankrupt the state.

The Legislature has been studying the unsustainable growth of Medicaid and has proposed a plan for addressing the Medicaid cost curve, with potential cost savings of $770 million over the next seven years. Since many rules for the program are dictated at the federal level, we as legislators had to think outside of the box for solutions within state control.

The plan places incentives for health services on cost and quality of care, not the number of procedures performed. By moving to a managed care model we hope to provide better overall health outcomes for Medicaid recipients.

This plan would also limit the per enrollee growth of Medicaid to the overall growth rate of the state’s general fund. For example, if the general fund growth is 5 percent, then Medicaid per enrollee growth can only be 5 percent. This way Medicaid can’t grow faster than the state can afford to pay. I can’t emphasis this component enough.

While we want to be able to care for our poor and needy, we can’t do so at the expense of every other state responsibility (like public education).

One of the more interesting components of the bill would create a Medicaid-specific rainy day fund. If Medicaid growth falls below 8 percent, the cost savings would go into the fund.

We have seen over the last few years the wisdom of having rainy day funds for both public education and the general fund.

It makes sense to plan for a time when more people than expected might need to take advantage of the safety net services Medicaid provides.

Some of these ideas will require federal waivers in order to enact the changes. My hope is the federal government will see the wisdom of taming this wildly growing program and quickly grant the necessary waiver requests.

We’ve learned from the recession that we can’t let programs balloon beyond our ability to pay or we will all end up dealing with the difficult aftermath when the balloon pops.

Last year, the Arizona State Legislature passed a controversial piece of in-state immigration legislation, which grabbed the attention of like-minded legislators in Utah. Rep. Steve Standstrom (R-Orem) has worked to craft his version of an immigration bill.  Since this issue is difficult, complex, and emotional on all sides, Rep. Sanstrom’s efforts have garnered quite a response and generated several other bills on the subject.

The debate seems to be centered on a few key bills or themes, each attempting to tackle the issue from a different perspective.  Rep. Sandstrom’s bill is entitled HB 70 Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act and as its title suggests, its key element is an enforcement push by police. It also includes enforcement provisions for anyone that might try to induce an undocumented immigrant to come to Utah and a requirement that legal status be documented by any State or local government agency offering a license or public benefit of any type.

Sen. Howard Stephenson (R-Draper) is currently working on a draft bill that would address the issue from an economic point of view. His bill takes the perspective that undocumented immigrants fill a void in our workforce and seeks to institute a state-run guest worker program. The program would require the posting of bonds to ensure immigrants return to their native country. Renewal of permits would be contingent on several factors, not least of which is the requirement that a guest worker return home before reapplying. The bill would also provide for the collection of taxes from the workers while in Utah. In order for this bill to be implemented, the federal government would need to grant Utah a waiver authorizing the State to run the program.

Yet another bill seeks to consider the humanitarian angle. Sen. Luz Robles’ (D-Salt Lake City) bill recognizes that undocumented immigrants are here in our community and seeks to bring them out into the open. Though still in draft form, this bill would allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a guest worker permit after completing a background check and taking English and civics courses. Federal waivers in several areas would be required in order to implement the provisions in this bill if it were to pass.

Each of the three bills I have outlined has generated spin-offs and some even have companion bills. Recognizing that there were many bills to consider in our short session, the Senate Republican Caucus has suggested that an omnibus bill be created to encompass most of the compatible ideas. Clearly, not all of the ideas that have been suggested are compatible and we in the House Republican Caucus are eager to see what they might purpose.

One thing is very clear, this issue will demand much debate and discussion before the Legislature will be able to pick the best Utah-specific path on the issue. My continued hope is that the Legislature and the citizens of the State engage in dialogue on this issue, and all issues, with respect and civility. We can disagree without being disagreeable, even on this difficult and personal subject and find Utah solutions.

The light in the distance is indeed cause for celebration, but we aren’t out of the tunnel yet. How we handle the difficult budget decisions ahead will determine whether we have earned passage out of the Great Recession.

Despite two years of cuts, we find ourselves $313 million short of meeting the state’s on-going budget needs. This is partly due to expiring federal stimulus funds and partly an overall effect of an economy that has shrunk significantly since the boom years of 2007-2008.

This shortfall estimate does not include the additional funding needs in high growth areas like public education, higher education, and Medicaid. Our assets include $210 million remaining in the Rainy Day Fund and an anticipated economic growth of $250 million this fiscal year. However, once one combines our assets and liabilities, it quickly becomes apparent we just don’t have enough money to cover everything.

What would you do if your take home pay was less than your mortgage? More than likely you would find additional income or reduce your household expenses. As a state we are exempt from the laws of prudent finance. I am not in favor of increases to our income through tax increases. It leaves only the alternative, reducing our expenses.

Given the financial pain experienced by every citizen of the state over the last two years, I was frankly astonished earlier this week as my Democratic colleagues in the Legislature suggested that they were okay with a structural budget imbalance, floated the idea of running a deficit and suggests two possible tax increases!

Haven’t we learned from the folly of living beyond our means and using credit for on-going expenses? In both public and personal finance the story of the Great Recession has been the collapse of the balloon. Everyone thought we could spend today and put off paying until a far-off tomorrow. When the balloon popped, families and governments were left scrambling to pay for mortgages and hefty entitlement programs they had agreed to when times were flush and credit plentiful.

The pain of budget cutting over the past two years has impressed upon me a very important lesson. Budgets must balance, on-going expenses and on-going revenue sources must be paired and credit is to be used sparingly.

Cutting budgets is hard, painful and dirty work; I do not relish the task. During the past two years, I have listened to many passionate pleas to fund various programs.. Those of us in the hot seat forced to reconcile financial realities with imploring faces find few friends during budget time.

The easy way out is to punt the hard decisions away to some future Legislature and to borrow money to keep everyone happy. It is a slippery slope and one need look no further than Congress to see that following the path of least budget resistance leads to an ocean of red ink.

It might not be the politically popular choice, but I believe we need to live within our means. If our revenue growth doesn’t match budget shortfalls, then I believe we need to trim our expenses. Rainy day funds ought to be used judiciously since they are finite and non-renewing.

We spent over half of the Rainy Day Fund last year and have found it is still raining a year later. Who is to say we won’t still be enduring a steady drizzle next year or the year after? It wouldn’t be wise to completely deplete the fund, but rather to dip into it judiciously for essentials only.

Our parents and grandparents learned an enduring lesson in frugality after the Great Depression. Are we so quick to forget the lesson of our Great Recession because we didn’t experience bread lines or tent cities?

Don’t be fooled by those who claim you can have it all for no money down and a credit card balance to be paid later. There is always a price to pay. I for one, would rather pay the price now so our futures are unencumbered with the debt of the past.

To the occasional legislative-follower, the sessions and issues might blend together, but to Legislators, the flavor and tone of each year’s session is unique because of the issues that rise to the forefront and dominate the debate and discussion.  The past two sessions were monopolized by difficult budget discussions, which made the sessions seem longer and harder than others in recent memory.  As I survey the issues lining up to frame and shape this session, two stand out as particularly hot topics: continued budget woes and immigration.

Thankfully the recession’s grip has begun to weaken and we are starting to see signs of economic growth.  However, federal stimulus funds and other one-time revenue sources will dry up effective June 30, 2011. This leaves the State $313 million short of meeting our current commitments when the new fiscal year starts on July 1, 2011. In addition to these shortfalls, we have some areas of the budget with growing needs like public education, higher education, and Medicaid enrollment growth and additional federal program requirements.  The State still has approximately $210 million in our Rainy Day Fund, but obviously even if we utilized every penny in the fund, we would still fall short by $103 million dollars and the fund would be completely depleted.

The unfortunate budget reality given rainy day reserves and current budget needs demonstrate that we will likely have to make additional budget cuts of approximately 7% or consider revenue-raising options like tax or fee increases. Personally, I am opposed to any tax increases because I fear it might slow or halt our fledgling economic recovery. The Legislature will spend much of our time this session weighing the importance and needs of various programs and departments as we formulate a balanced budget that helps us live within our means.

For better or worse, this year’s hottest hot topic appears to be immigration. Through most of the summer and into the fall, various legislators and interest groups have floated ideas, held forums, and suggested many possible paths for in-state immigration reform.  Though many bills are still in draft form, we know there will be upwards of 10 bills addressing the issue from almost every possible angle.

This issue is intriguing and challenging because it has all the elements a political scientist might want to study: a classic clash of state and federal powers; the tradition of a nation comprised of immigrants contrasted against the backdrop of a post-9/11 need for border security; and very real human elements caught up on both sides.

This issue is difficult, complex, and emotional. Add to that an additional layer of frustration on all sides because this problem could be more easily addressed at the federal level, but unfortunately the federal government lacks the courage and political leadership to do so.  The State Senate has suggested that an omnibus bill be created that encompasses most of the compatible ideas. Clearly, not all of the ideas that have been suggested are compatible, so much debate and discussion will be necessary in order for the Legislature to pick a path on the issue.

On immigration in particular, there will be a clash of ideas and values. My hope is that the Legislature and the citizens of the State engage in dialogue on this issue, and all issues, with respect and civility. We can disagree without being disagreeable, and wouldn’t that be the best tone and flavor for the session to assume?

As legislators, we agonize over every dollar. With $460 million in federal stimulus funds expiring for many programs, Utah felt for the first time the full brunt of the stagnant economy. The 2010-2011 budget shrank by $640 million as compared to the 2009-2010 budget. Each and every program and department, with the exception of Public Education, had to absorb a 5% cut, including state Legislators all of whom took a pay cut. We did all we could to protect the classroom from cuts, sparing public education all but a 0.6% reduction. We are all learning to do more with less while protecting critical, frontline programs like public education and Medicaid.

This year, we spent nearly $313 million from our General and Education Rainy Day Funds. We have held roughly $210 million of our rainy day funds in reserve for future use and to protect the State’s AAA bond (i.e. credit) rating. We are one of only six states rated this high by Standard and Poor’s, enabling the borrowing of money at a much better rate. While the budget news I have related thus far is fairly depressing, there is a silver lining to the financial storm clouds. The revenue projections for Utah from November 2009 through February 2010 were stable for the first time in many quarters, showing that we have reached the bottom of the financial decline. While the projections don’t yet hint at economic recovery, they are a very important indicator that the worst is over.

One of the more challenging budget issues we dealt with this year as a result of the recession was the $6.5 billion in unfunded liabilities in the Utah Retirement System (URS). The URS fund posted a negative 22.3% loss last year, a loss so large the actuarial experts stated there was no way the fund could self-correct the deficit over time without intervention. The Legislature felt it was important to protect and honor the promises made to current employees and retirees. No changes were made to those benefits. Instead, the changes centered on the retirement packages for future hires. Employees hired after July 1, 2011 will have the option to pick from either a traditional defined contribution plan or a hybrid defined benefit/defined contribution plan. The so-called “double- dippers” will be prevented from taking a second bite at the retirement apple. Instead, they will have the option to come back into the system and earn additional service credits or continue to draw pension benefits and their salary with no double-dip into a retirement system or 401(k).

In addition to budgetary matters, the Legislature also aggressively tackled ethics reform in a series of bills that eliminate the personal use of campaign funds, prohibits Legislators from receiving gifts worth more than $10, require greater disclosure on a legislators’ conflict of interest forms, and creates an independent ethics commission. When elected, I promised that we would do things differently at the Legislature and I believe these actions are significant and will greatly enhance the transparency of the actions we take at the Capitol.

A very heated debate was raised this session regarding streambed access throughout the state. There were essentially two schools of thought in regards to this controversial issue. One was to let the Conaster State Supreme Court decision stand, opening all streams to public access including those that could only be accessed through private land. This idea tended to benefit fisherman more. The legislative proposal benefited private property owners and sought to place restrictions limiting the court action. The philosophy this year ended up leaning towards private property rights. A one-year task force to study the issue further has also been implemented.

Healthcare Reform was another significant topic. Utah is currently in the third year of a 10-year plan. Legislation was proposed to create an “exchange” for small businesses where employees can shop for policies online. Large employers will be added on a limited basis at a later date. Other reforms include greater transparency in our Medicaid programs and requirements for health providers and insurance carriers to use universal electronic billing information.

As you can see we took on some rather challenging issues this year, but with every action we sought to be good stewards of your tax dollars and public trust. I hope this will help to provide a bit of insight into the countless hours of hard work and dedication your legislators put into this year’s session as we worked to once again help make Utah a better place for all who live here.

Three years ago, Utah embarked on a bold mission to reform our health system. Our goals were threefold, 1) to give individuals, rather than employers, the choice of affordable health insurance plans that fit their family’s needs; 2) to give individuals the choice of provider networks, costs, and risks they are willing to assume along with the accountability for healthy lifestyle and disease management; and, 3) to provide individuals the tools and incentives to ask about the benefits, risks, costs and quality of health care services.

In our several years of work on reform inside Utah, we have built a foundation for a new health system based on market solutions. We have asked stakeholders to cooperate, participate, innovate and implement change. These groups have been diligently delving into problems and probing for solutions for the past few years.  Several pieces of legislation have come out of this task force and are already having a positive impact on the lives of Utahns. Last year we implemented a groundbreaking reform measure establishing a defined contribution market. Employees could enjoy expanded choice and greater control over their health care dollars as they accessed this market through the Utah Health Exchange.

Among the first states engage in reform, Utah lead out by adopting a market-based approach as the primary instrument for meaningful health system reform. Late last year, as a result of our limited launch, we discovered that the current methodologies and some of the existing laws governing health insurance in the traditional market did not work very well in the defined contribution market. Instead of throwing in the towel and declaring health reform a Sisyphean task too large to tackle, we instead spend the interim examining the problems and looking for solutions.

Included in our health system reform package this year is HB 294, which aims to correct the problems we identified in the health exchange, designed to optimize choice for Utah businesses and their employees by equalizing markets.  In addition to the changes being made to the health exchange there are several additional bills:

• HB 20 amends the requirement that contractors with State contracts must provide qualified health insurance to their employees and the dependents of the employees who work or reside in the state.
• HB 25 simplifies the coordination of health insurance benefits in divorce decrees and child support orders.
• HB 52 this bill amends the uniform electronic standards for health insurance claims processing, electronic insurance eligibility information, and electronic information regarding the coordination of benefits.
• HB 408 facilitates the open and honest dialogue between care provider and patient regarding unexpected medical outcomes and timely and cost effective resolution of unexpected medical outcomes.
• HB 459 will require additional accountability and transparency within our Medicaid program.
• HJR 34 amends the Utah Rules of Evidence making expressions of apology, sympathy, condolences and the like inadmissible against the health care provider.
• HCR 8 this resolution urges Congress and President to resist any legislation that imposes further restrictions on any State’s ability to regulate the payment and delivery of health care, imposes additional financial burden related to health care on any state, or limits the ability of consumers and businesses to create innovative models for higher quality, lower cost health care.

Unfortunately, article space doesn’t allow for a more detailed description of all the elements in this year’s reform package, but more information can be found by visiting the legislative website www.le.utah.gov.  We know there is still work to be done beyond 2010 on this issue. Many families are still without insurance and the cost of care is too high. Once the legislative session ends, you will find our task force, once again, hard at work on the tough problems that just can’t wait for an “almost” solution from Washington.