The move, announced Friday, shelves two of the most contentious bills to emerge this legislative session: one designed to force IHC to sell its insurance division, the other to give patients greater access to doctors and hospitals not approved by their insurance plans. Both were fueled by criticism of IHC - from its size to its billing practices to its tax-exempt status. And now, after a weeklong IHC media blitz and pleas from hesitant lawmakers, both are headed to a study group.

Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, rewrote the divestiture bill Friday to include a task force, and within hours Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, pulled his patient-access bill from a House committee and said that he, too, was backing down.

Waddoups' proposal still would force IHC to get rid of its health plans by July 2008, but it gives the Legislature three years to study the issue - and to change its mind. That concession made Buttars look less deliberative and damaged his bill's chance of passage, he said.

"The big cry has been let's study this thing," Buttars said, adding later: "I'm disappointed, but it's a good compromise."

IHC was less enthusiastic.

In a statement, CEO Bill Nelson said a study group is a good idea, but noted the bill still calls for a divestiture of IHC's health plan. "Such a requirement seems to predetermine the outcome of the task force and appears at odds with a spirit of objective inquiry," he said.

There is plenty of time for lawmakers to change that - the divestiture bill still must pass a full vote of the Senate and three more in the House - and for IHC to continue its well-honed display of defensive medicine.

Since Waddoups unveiled his bill Feb. 11, IHC employees and supporters have deluged lawmakers with e-mails - one legislator said he receives 200 a day - and crammed the Capitol in protest. They have appeared in ads to trash Waddoups' legislation as a hidden cost increase for employers and their workers.

Buttars' bill, which passed the Senate last week, would have allowed customers of health plans, including IHC's, to seek care from any willing provider as long as the doctor or hospital were willing to accept 95 percent of the insurance company's standard rate. Although the bill undermined IHC's most popular plan - the closed-panel HMO - the company left opposition up to other Utah insurers and their lobbyists, who staged a number of news conferences blasting the bill.

Tom Anderson, a chiropractor and supporter of the patient-access bill, said it is a shame members of the House will not get to debate it. The problem, he said, is that the proposal was linked to Waddoups' bill long before Buttars announced his proposed merger, and both were branded as IHC-bashing.

And yet, Anderson acknowledged, that backlash against IHC is probably why the patient access bill got as far as it did. At least, he said, the concept of letting patients, not health plans, choose their doctors is not dead, even if the bill is.

"They married it [to Waddoups' bill] to keep it alive," he said. "And that's better than nothing."

lfantin@sltrib.com