OPINION: Legislature should require an impact statement on health-related bills
“Your money or your life” is a phrase attributed to robbers since time immemorial. The robber blurts it out, giving the victim a stark choice. The victim can then mull it over quickly and decide the wisdom of proceeding one way or the other. The Idaho Legislature has not been as open as these highwaymen, giving their cohorts and the public only one side of legislation affecting the lives and health of their constituents.
While our lawmakers are required to provide a fiscal impact statement with each legislative measure (and truth be told, the statements are often wild estimates), there is absolutely no requirement for them to spell out the impact that health-related legislation will have on the lives of the people. That information would certainly be more important than a calculation of the monetary cost.
The most important health-related bill pending in the Legislature is Rep. Jordan Redman’s House Bill 850. It would repeal Medicaid expansion, which was enacted into law in 2018 through a voter initiative that passed with a remarkable 61% vote. Redman’s fiscal note demonstrates the unreliability of legislative cost estimates, claiming that repeal would save the state $1.344 billion.
Redman does not tell us that 90% of the cost of expansion is paid with federal dollars and, when all other financial factors are considered, repeal would cost the state at least $20 million. Nor does he say that almost 90,000 Idahoans would lose Medicaid coverage, causing hundreds of preventable deaths. It is essential to know the potential health/life impact of a bill when it is introduced. Legislative rules should require it. Another bill that cries out for a life impact statement is Sen. Brandon Shippy’s Senate Bill 1346. Rep. Redman is also a sponsor of this bill that would place a two-year moratorium on administration of mRNA vaccines to pregnant women and children. They could not get the vaccine, even if their doctors prescribed it. The Covid vaccine was proven safe and effective by the FDA. It is irresponsible to claim otherwise.
The fiscal impact statement says the bill has no monetary cost. A life impact statement would be extremely helpful, however, because Covid-19 is still with us and other mRNA vaccines are in the pipeline. A recent Stanford University study disclosed that the COVID-19 vaccine prevented “7,000 hospitalizations in infants and 3,000 in pregnant women from January 2024 to May 2025.”
These two legislators are fine with the over-the-counter sale of a horse dewormer that has also been used by humans. Ivermectin was ballyhooed by hucksters as a cure for Covid during the height of the pandemic. The FDA warned against its use, telling prospective human users: “you are not a horse. You are not a cow.” Many ignored the warning, refused the Covid vaccine, took Ivermectin instead and died. Nevertheless, last year Redman introduced and Shippy voted for Senate Bill 1211, which allows pharmacies to sell Ivermectin without a prescription. Redman operates a pharmacy in Coeur d’Alene and sells the substance there. The bill said there would be no fiscal impact, but it should have been required to disclose the life impact–that it was not effective against Covid but could adversely affect the health of users. This is information that the public is entitled to know before choosing a course of treatment.
• • •
Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He also publishes at substack.com/@jjcommontater