HB 65 expands Utah’s firefighter occupational disease protections by broadening the list of cancers that are presumed to be work-related for qualifying firefighters. Under the bill, a firefighter diagnosed with one of the listed “presumptive cancers” may invoke a rebuttable presumption that the cancer arose out of and in the course of firefighting service, so long as the firefighter meets specified service, medical-exam, screening, and reporting requirements. The bill also updates the definition of firefighter for purposes of the Occupational Disease Act and clarifies that the presumption can be rebutted by evidence, including evidence that tobacco or marijuana use substantially contributed to certain respiratory cancers.
The bill adds a new cancer-screening program for public firefighters. The Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health must offer screenings after seven years of service and at recurring intervals based on age, and the fire and rescue training program must help facilitate and track those screenings. Beginning in 2029, public fire departments and firefighting organizations must provide health care benefits consistent with the screening requirements, and they must reimburse firefighters for out-of-pocket screening costs such as copays, deductibles, and coinsurance. The bill also directs the state to fund the program with a $3.7 million General Fund appropriation for fiscal year 2026, intended to support the first three years of the screening program.
In state law, HB 65 amends the Utah Occupational Disease Act and related provisions governing firefighter workers’ compensation claims. It expands the list of presumptive cancers from a narrower set to a broader list including bladder, brain, colorectal, kidney, leukemia, lymphoma, melanoma, mesothelioma, prostate, thyroid, and others. It also revises liability rules when a firefighter served multiple employers, tying responsibility to the fire department or firefighting organization and insurer at the time of the last substantial exposure to a known carcinogen. In addition, the bill requires the Division of Industrial Accidents to conduct a five-year study and report back to the Legislature by 2029 on whether additional cancers should be added or removed from the presumptive list.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and bipartisan. The recorded votes in both chambers were unanimous or near-unanimous, and the bill advanced through committee and floor action without any recorded opposition votes. The broad support suggests general agreement that firefighters face elevated cancer risks and that the state should strengthen screening and compensation protections.
There is little visible contention in the available record, but the bill does include a few policy limits that may reflect compromise. Notably, it excludes respiratory cancers when tobacco, cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, or marijuana are a substantial contributing cause, and it sets detailed eligibility requirements for the presumption, including service length and medical documentation. The timing and funding structure for the screening mandate may also be a practical point of concern for fire departments, since the reimbursement and benefit obligations phase in over time and require ongoing administrative coordination.
HB 65 amends the Utah Occupational Disease Act and related firefighter training statutes to expand workers’ compensation presumptions for firefighter cancers, create a statewide cancer screening program for public firefighters, and require reimbursement of screening-related out-of-pocket costs. It also adds reporting, tracking, and study requirements, and appropriates $3.7 million from the General Fund for implementation. The bill affects firefighters, public fire departments, firefighting organizations, insurers, Utah Valley University’s fire and rescue training program, the Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, and the Division of Industrial Accidents.
The bill appears to have received very strong bipartisan support throughout the legislative process. Committee and floor votes in both chambers were unanimous or overwhelmingly favorable, and there is no recorded opposition in the available voting history. The lack of dissent suggests broad agreement with the bill’s purpose of improving cancer protections and screening access for firefighters.
No major contention is evident in the available transcripts or vote history, but the bill’s detailed eligibility rules indicate the main policy balancing points. These include the requirement for years of service and periodic medical exams before a firefighter can claim the presumption, the exclusion of respiratory cancers when tobacco or marijuana use is a substantial contributing cause, and the phased-in employer reimbursement and benefit obligations. Any concerns likely centered on program cost, administrative burden, and how to allocate liability among multiple fire employers, though no recorded opposition appears in the legislative history provided.