HB0171 makes targeted amendments to two Utah code sections: it tidies up language in the primary care definitions statute and alters insurance-network language to explicitly permit physician assistants (PAs) to serve as selectable primary care providers. The bill also adds a statutory definition of “pregnancy support services” in the primary care grant statute.
These are technical edits on their face, but they clarify who counts as a primary care provider for insurer networks and what services qualify under department-administered primary care grants.
Why it matters: the changes remove an old phrasing that linked physician assistants to a physician workplace arrangement and instead recognizes PAs as providers of primary care in their own right for the purposes of insurance plan selection. Insurers, plan administrators, primary care grant administrators, PAs, physician groups, and community organizations that apply for grants will need to adjust policies, network materials, and eligibility assessments to reflect the revised definitions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Utah Code 26B-4-301 to update definitions used in the state’s primary care grant and program statutes and amends 31A-22-624 to make clear that a participating provider may be a physician assistant who provides primary care or who acts in the roles of obstetrician, gynecologist, or pediatric provider. It also adds a definition of “pregnancy support services.”
Who It Affects
Directly affected stakeholders include physician assistants and the clinics that employ them, health insurers and employer-sponsored health plans that publish network selection options, the Department of Health’s grant programs and applicants for primary care grants, and physical therapists referenced in the statute. Secondary effects will touch physician practices and health systems that negotiate network participation and scope-of-practice arrangements.
Why It Matters
By clarifying that PAs may be selected as primary care providers, the bill can broaden who patients may choose as their designated PCP and reduce administrative ambiguity for insurers. The new definition of pregnancy support services narrows what activities count for certain grant-funded programs, which can change grant eligibility and program design for community-based organizations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB0171 performs two discrete updates to Utah law. The first is a clean-up in the definitions used for the state’s primary care and grant programs (26B-4-301).
The statute’s lists of provider types are modernized — for example, correcting the language around physician assistants — and the law now explicitly defines “pregnancy support services” as services that encourage childbirth instead of termination and assist pregnant people to choose childbirth, whether they parent or pursue adoption. That definition will guide which activities qualify under the department’s primary care grant program.
The second change sits in the insurance code (31A-22-624). The bill amends the rule that governs which participating providers an insured may select as a primary care provider for full coverage.
It replaces language that described a physician assistant only as one who “works with a physician” and instead allows an insured to select a PA who is providing primary care or who functions in the roles of obstetrician, gynecologist, or pediatrician as a participating provider. Insurers must continue to disclose these options in their policy literature and may not impose higher premiums or copayments when an insured selects a primary care provider under this section.Taken together, these are mainly technical edits, but they shift the statutory framing of PAs in two consequential places: licensing/definition text used by state programs and insurance-network selection rules.
The bill leaves intact other statutory limits: it does not change licensing or the professional scope-of-practice statutes in Title 58, and it explicitly preserves the prohibition on physical therapists practicing outside their statutory scope. The bill takes effect May 6, 2026.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Utah Code 26B-4-301 (definitions used for primary care and grants) and 31A-22-624 (insurance primary care selection rules).
It replaces the older phrasing that tied physician assistants to ‘working with a physician’ and instead permits an insured to select a physician assistant who is providing primary care or serving in obstetrics, gynecology, or pediatrics as their participating primary care provider.
HB0171 inserts a statutory definition of “pregnancy support services” that expressly means services that encourage childbirth rather than termination and assist pregnant persons to choose childbirth, including parenting or adoption pathways.
Insurers must continue to disclose PCP selection options in plan literature and are prohibited from charging higher premiums, copayments, or additional expenses when an insured selects a primary care provider under this section.
The bill does not change licensing or scope-of-practice laws in Title 58 and explicitly preserves the rule that physical therapists may not practice outside their statutory scope.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Update and additions to primary care program definitions
This section modernizes the definitions subsection used by the department’s primary care and grant programs. It replaces a miswritten possessive reference to physician assistants with the correct term and adds a new definition of “pregnancy support services.” Practically, this changes the pool of activities and organizations the department can consider when awarding primary care grants and administering related programs; grant administrators will use the new definition when evaluating applications and allowable activities.
Clarifies who may be selected as a primary care provider in insurance plans
The insurance-code amendment removes the bracketed phrase that limited physician assistants to those who “work with a physician” and instead allows a PA to be a selectable participating provider if the PA provides primary care or serves in roles matching obstetrics, gynecology, or pediatrics. The provision keeps the insurer’s duty to describe options in policy literature and preserves the prohibition on imposing higher cost-sharing for selecting an eligible primary care provider. Operationally, insurers and plan administrators must update enrollment materials and provider-eligibility rules to reflect this clearer statutory status for PAs.
Physical therapist language and consumer protections remain intact
The bill leaves intact the portion allowing physical therapists to be selectable for physical therapy services while expressly preserving the limitation that nothing in the section permits practice outside the profession’s statutory scope. It also retains the consumer-protection language requiring clear disclosure of options and barring higher costs for selecting eligible providers, so the change to PA language does not alter these protections.
Effective date
The bill sets an operational date of May 6, 2026. All affected parties — insurers, the Department of Health, grant applicants, and provider organizations — should plan to have materials, contracts, and eligibility criteria updated to reflect the amended terminology and definitions by that date.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Physician assistants — The statutory language now recognizes PAs explicitly as eligible primary care providers for insurance-network selection, reducing administrative hurdles when PAs serve as the patient’s designated PCP and potentially increasing patient panels and reimbursement routes for PAs.
- Patients seeking primary care — Patients gain clearer statutory backing to select a PA as their primary care provider, which can expand access to designated PCPs in primary-care-short areas and increase choice when physicians are not available.
- Community-based organizations that provide pregnancy-outcome support — With a statutory definition of “pregnancy support services,” organizations that focus on childbirth support, referral to parenting resources, or adoption assistance will have clearer guidance on whether their services fit within primary care grant-funded activities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Health insurers and third-party administrators — They must update plan documents, provider directories, enrollment processes, and potentially network arrangements to accommodate the clarified PA status and ensure literature reflects the options the statute requires insurers to publish.
- Physician groups and employer-sponsored plan sponsors — Practices that previously limited panels to physicians may see competition for PCP designation and must revisit credentialing and supervisory agreements where those practices existed.
- State grant administrators and the Department of Health — Grant criteria, application forms, and evaluation rubrics may require revision to apply the new “pregnancy support services” definition consistently across awards; that administrative work is a near-term cost.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims that pull in opposite directions: expanding and clarifying patient choice (by recognizing PAs as selectable primary care providers and defining program-eligible pregnancy support services) versus maintaining clear, enforceable boundaries around professional scope and program intent. Clarifying statutory language helps access and administration, but by delegating key definitions to insurers and agencies and adding programmatic language without operational standards, the bill risks producing inconsistent application and disputes over what counts as primary care or qualifying grant activity.
The bill is compact and mostly technical, but it raises implementation questions that the text does not resolve. First, the statute allows insurers to accept a PA as a primary care provider “providing primary care,” but it leaves the operational definition of “providing primary care” to the health plan.
That delegation creates the potential for divergent insurer practices: some plans may accept a PA as a fully equivalent PCP; others may restrict allowable PA roles in ways that recreate the prior ambiguity. Regulators and plan contract language will determine how uniform the outcome is across the market.
Second, the new statutory definition of “pregnancy support services” narrows the content eligible under primary care grant-funded activity by describing services that “encourage childbirth instead of voluntary termination of pregnancy.” The language is programmatic rather than prescriptive about funding, but it creates an eligibility criterion that will shape which community-based organizations can qualify for grants. The statute does not provide standards or metrics for what constitutes “encourage,” nor does it address counseling neutrality or whether a grant recipient may provide a broader array of reproductive health information; those omissions leave room for contested administrative interpretations.
Finally, the bill clarifies insurance-network treatment of PAs without amending Title 58 licensing and scope-of-practice provisions. That means operational practice authority — supervision, delegation, prescriptive authority — still depends on professional licensing law and practice agreements.
Where statutory framing diverges from practice-law realities, health systems, insurers, and regulatory agencies will need to align contracts and oversight to avoid conflicts or gaps in patient care and billing.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.