Pay for mandates
When the Legislature requires health insurers to cover a particular disease or condition, that raises the cost of insurance. In the past, however, the state budget has not reflected those higher costs for school districts and colleges. That would change under a bill that has been passed by the Utah Senate which would require the Legislature to appropriate money to pay for such insurance mandates. That’s good policy.
It would provide schools and colleges the revenue they need to comply with insurance mandates. But perhaps as important, it would cause lawmakers to wrestle with the same increased costs that these mandates create for small businesses. (Large companies that self-insure are usually exempt.)
In the past, the Legislature could pass the buck to the school district, university or college, requiring those institutions to come up with the money, somehow, to meet the new cost. Hence the term unfunded mandate. Utah legislators often complain, rightly, when the federal government passes an unfunded mandate to the states. But Utah lawmakers are guilty of doing the same to schools and local governments.
SB138 would put an end to that where insurance mandates are concerned. As the bill’s sponsor says, it would create greater transparency and accountability.
Our only real question is whether legislative staff would be able to accurately predict the cost of mandates in time for the appropriations process. But we suppose that could be said of any number of other financial projections.
Opponents of the bill have argued that the mandates should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and a bill that requires appropriations for every mandate is too broad. That doesn’t make sense.
True, some mandates would be more expensive than others, but it’s hard to imagine any that would be free. In every case, the principle would be the same. If new costs are imposed, the Legislature should fund them. To do otherwise ignores financial reality.
What the opponents really are saying is that if the Legislature has to fund the mandates, and can’t dodge the financial impacts, it will be much more difficult for proponents of mandates to get them passed.
Certainly there are places for mandates. In some cases, equity demands them. The Legislature debated a mandate for prescription contraceptives for years. In this session, a mandate for autism care is a hot topic. But compassion does not pay the bills. The higher costs imposed by mandates must be part of any honest debate. SB138 would afford that.
