New Utah Bill to Expand Breast Cancer Coverage Holded – KSL Newsradio

The Salt Lake City-Echacreproach, which would eliminate sharing the cost of breast cancer examinations, has already been detained.

The initial screenings of mammography are fully covered by insurance companies due to federal instructions. This Utah bill, HB314, will extend this coverage to include subsequent breast cancer examinations such as MRI and ultrasound.

The bill had an initial hearing at the meeting of the Committee on Business, Labor and Trade in Utah House and trade earlier this week, where several defenders explained the benefits of the bill as the members of the Commission raised questions about the financial impact.

How can the account save life

“We are trying to make sure that patients can see the whole process of evaluation of screening without delay, without financial challenges, before even treatment,” explained Konor Swey, a sunsen G. Comenn Foundation.

Studies by the American Cancer Association and the Susan G. Comenn found that the removal of financial barriers for additional needed breast cancer screening can improve early detection.

“In order to reduce the severity of breast cancer on individuals, families, communities and the greater health system, my organization advocates for policies to promote early discovery,” Swey said. “This bill is one of these policies.”

The five -year percentage of breast cancer survival at an early stage is about 99%. However, when left to metastasize, the survival rate drops to about 31%.

The advocates of the bill claim that early discovery ultimately saves life and reduces the cost of future breast cancer treatment if it is not caught at an early stage.

“[Estimates show] This removal of giving out expenses outside the pocket will save nearly $ 12,000 costs to treat cancer throughout life for a diagnosed patient, “Swey said. “Leading up to $ 2.2 billion savings in total cost of treating cancer throughout the country.”

Missing fiscal and economic impacts

Commission members had many questions about the fiscal impact statements and how this could negatively affect small business.

“I don’t think the fiscal note reflects what it should reflect,” said reporter James Dunigan, R-Salt Lake. “[It] He doesn’t even talk about the price of the private sector, we’re just talking about the public sector. Because the private sector, especially the small business, will be influenced by this. “

This fiscal note does not include all the potential PHP costs, higher education and all public officials.

Due to the lack of data, the commission members have requested that they put the bill in detention until the exact effects can be calculated.

Even with a proper fiscal statement, some members of the commission call into question the effectiveness of this bill.

“If three of four people already receive it and they already pay for it and they invent it to get the one out of four, we have to pay four times. Since we not only have to pay for the one who does not receive it, we also have to take the section for the three who receive it, “said reporter Norman Ruston, R-UTAH. “So it costs us four times more, which is why this part of the data is so important that we don’t.”

The Wurston reporter also expressed his concern about potential negative impacts on small business.

“Every time we start loading [mandated coverage] Up … this makes the price of the coating higher and it is more likely that small businesses just leave, “Ruston said.

He continued: “We have to be more logical and effective about how we will use all kinds of public money so that we get the maximum amount of coverage and service for the limited dollars we have.”

The members of the committee voted to retain the bill.

Related: