Interim study of the Montana State Fund's Plan 3 workers' compensation insurance
HJ 68 is a joint resolution requesting an interim legislative study of the Montana State Fund’s Plan 3 workers’ compensation insurance program for state employees. The resolution directs the Legislative Council to assign the study to an appropriate interim or statutory committee and asks that the committee examine how Plan 3 is structured and administered, including class codes, rates, tiers, discounts, dividends, and whether Montana State Fund agents receive monetary incentives for obtaining state employee policies.
The resolution also requires the committee to work with stakeholders, including business owners and representatives of the Montana State Fund, and to complete the study before September 15, 2026. The final report, including any findings, conclusions, comments, or recommendations, would be submitted to the 70th Legislature. Because it is a study resolution rather than a substantive policy change, it does not directly amend workers’ compensation statutes, but it could inform future legislation or oversight of the Montana State Fund and state employee coverage arrangements.
HJ 68 would not itself change Montana law or workers’ compensation benefit rules; instead, it would create a legislative study process focused on the Montana State Fund’s Plan 3 insurance product for state employees. Its practical effect would be to direct interim legislative attention and resources toward evaluating pricing, incentives, and program structure, potentially leading to future oversight, administrative changes, or statutory amendments based on the study’s findings.
The bill appears to have been motivated by concern about the Montana State Fund’s practices, with the resolution’s findings citing lawsuits, alleged conflicts of interest, and accusations of mishandling policyholder funds and unnecessary fees. However, the voting history shows the measure did not gain enough support to advance, including a failed second reading vote, suggesting limited legislative consensus despite some backing in committee. Overall, the sentiment around the bill seems mixed: supportive among sponsors and members interested in oversight, but not broadly persuasive to the full House.
The main points of contention were the need for and scope of the study, and the underlying criticism of the Montana State Fund. Supporters sought closer examination of Plan 3 rates, discounts, dividends, and possible agent incentives, implying concern about transparency and fairness in the program. Opponents likely viewed the resolution as unnecessary, overly critical of the State Fund, or insufficiently justified, as reflected in the bill being tabled once in committee and then failing on second reading. The dispute centered on whether legislative scrutiny was warranted and whether the allegations in the resolution supported further study.