Summary#

HJ-68 is a joint resolution requesting an interim study of the Montana State Fund’s Plan 3 workers’ compensation insurance for state employees. It does not amend an existing law or change insurance rules. Its stated goal is to examine how Plan 3 works; the bill failed, so it does not require a study.

• It would ask the Legislative Council to designate an interim or statutory committee to conduct the study.
• The study would examine class codes, rates, tiers, discounts, dividends, and whether Montana State Fund agents receive monetary incentives for acquiring state employee policies.
• The committee would work with stakeholders, including business owners and Montana State Fund representatives.
• The study, including presentation and review requirements, would have to finish before September 15, 2026, with results reported to the 70th Legislature.

What it means for you#

• State employees: The resolution would not change your workers’ compensation coverage, rates, or benefits. It would study the insurance plan covering state employees.
• Business owners and Montana State Fund representatives: They are named as stakeholders for the committee to work with. The resolution does not set out how that involvement would happen.
• Montana State Fund: The study would examine aspects of its Plan 3 insurance and whether its agents receive monetary incentives for acquiring state employee policies. It would not itself change the Fund’s rules or operations.
• Everyone else: The resolution would not create a new service, fee, tax, or insurance benefit.

Money#

No cost information is available in the supplied material.

• The resolution does not appropriate money or estimate the cost of the study.
• It does not say how much committee or staff time the study would use.

What is unclear#

• The resolution does not set out how the committee would collect information, assess it, or report its findings.
• It does not define class codes, tiers, or other study terms.
• It does not specify how state employees would be involved in the study.
• It does not say whether any findings or recommendations would lead to later changes.
• The resolution failed, so it does not require the study to go ahead.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the study is that examining rates, discounts, dividends, and class codes could help legislators understand how Plan 3 insurance is priced.
• Examining whether agents receive monetary incentives could help clarify how policies for state employees are acquired.
• The resolution calls for input from business owners and Montana State Fund representatives, who may bring relevant experience to the study.

Case against#

• The study would not itself change insurance terms or address any problem it might identify.
• The resolution does not set a method for investigating the issues or require particular findings.
• It is unclear how state employees—the people whose coverage is being studied—would take part.
• The bill’s recitals include allegations about the Montana State Fund, but the resolution does not establish whether those allegations are true.