S.B. 132

1

HEALTH CARE CONSUMER'S REPORT
2 2005 GENERAL SESSION
3 STATE OF UTAH
4 Sponsor: Allen M. Christensen
5
6 LONG TITLE
7 General Description:
8 This bill amends the Utah Health Data Authority Act to require annual reports of
9 comparisons between health care facilities based on certain designated quality, safety,
10 and cost factors.
11 Highlighted Provisions:
12 This bill:
13 . requires the Health Data Authority to publish reports at least annually that compare
14 and identify health care facilities;
15 . requires the Health Data Authority to publish the data in a form that is easily
16 accessible to the public;
17 . requires the reports comparing health care facilities to be based on several
18 designated factors;
19 . requires the Department of Health to define patient safety sentinel events; and
20 . requires health care facilities to report patient safety sentinel events within 72 hours
21 or lose the privileged communication otherwise granted by law.
22 Monies Appropriated in this Bill:
23 None
24 Other Special Clauses:
25 None
26 Utah Code Sections Affected:
27 AMENDS:

28 26-33a-106.5, as last amended by Chapter 53, Laws of Utah 2001
29 ENACTS:
30 26-25-7, Utah Code Annotated 1953
31
32 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
33 Section 1. Section 26-33a-106.5 is amended to read:
34 26-33a-106.5. Comparative analyses.
35 (1) The committee may publish compilations or reports that compare and identify
36 health care providers or data suppliers from the data it collects under this chapter or from any
37 other source.
38 (2) (a) The committee shall publish compilations or reports from the data it collects
39 under this chapter or from any other source which:
40 (i) contain the information described in Subsection (2)(b); and
41 (ii) compare and identify by name at least a majority of the health care facilities and
42 institutions in the state.
43 (b) The report required by this Subsection (2) shall:
44 (i) be published at least annually; and
45 (ii) contain comparisons based on at least the following factors:
46 (A) nationally recognized quality standards;
47 (B) charges; and
48 (C) nationally recognized patient safety standards.
49 [(2)] (3) The committee [shall ] may contract with a private, independent analyst to
50 evaluate the standard comparative reports of the committee that identify, compare, or rank the
51 performance of data suppliers by name. The evaluation shall include a validation of statistical
52 methodologies, limitations, appropriateness of use, and comparisons using standard health
53 services research practice. The analyst must be experienced in analyzing large databases from
54 multiple data suppliers and in evaluating health care issues of cost, quality, and access. The
55 results of the analyst's evaluation must be released to the public before the standard
56 comparative analysis upon which it is based may be published by the committee.
57 [(3)] (4) The committee shall adopt by rule a timetable for the collection and analysis
58 of data from multiple types of data suppliers.

59 (5) The comparative analysis required under Subsection (2) shall be available free of
60 charge and easily accessible to the public.
61 Section 2. Section 26-25-7 is enacted to read:
62 26-25-7. Reporting of patient safety sentinel event -- Penalty for failure to report.
63 (1) The department shall establish by rule:
64 (a) a definition of a patient safety sentinel event; and
65 (b) requirements for reporting and evaluating patient safety sentinel events.
66 (2) A health care facility shall report a patient safety sentinel event to the department
67 within 72 hours of the facility becoming aware of the sentinel event.
68 (3) If a health care facility fails to report a patient safety sentinel event within 72 hours
69 as provided by this section, the privileged communication granted by Sections 26-25-3 and
70 26-33a-111 , as applied to any information pertaining to that patient safety sentinel event, is
71 void.




Legislative Review Note
as of 1-6-05 2:40 PM

Based on a limited legal review, this legislation has not been determined to have a high
probability of being held unconstitutional.

Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel