HELENA — Lawmakers heard competing views on House Bill 143 on Jan. 31, a bill that would amend Montana’s workers’ compensation law to remove a geographic restriction that can prevent physician assistants from serving as the treating physician on a claim.

Sponsor Jodee Etchart, R-, told the House Business and Labor Committee the change is a ‘‘cleanup’’ to align with prior independent-practice legislation and to maintain access to care across Montana. ‘‘We don’t want patients…to travel 6 hours to get care,’’ Etchart said.

The bill’s proponents — including representatives of Montana State Fund, school self-insurance pools, the Montana Academy of PAs, the Montana Primary Care Association and organized labor — said the statutory text currently allows PAs to provide care under the act but one paragraph’s geographic language is an anomaly that can block timely treatment, especially in rural communities.

Nick Mazanec of Montana State Fund described the role of a treating physician in workers’ compensation: diagnosis, release to return to work, maximum medical improvement determinations and impairment ratings. ‘‘This bill is simply to address that problem,’’ Mazanec told the committee.

Opponents raised concerns about injured workers’ ability to choose their treating provider. Al Smith, identifying himself with the Montana Bridal Lawyers Association, noted insurers currently have statutory rights to designate the treating physician and warned the bill could preserve insurer-driven choice rather than expand worker choice. Several injured-worker witnesses said they preferred direct access to physicians rather than insurer-assigned providers.

Quinlan O’Connor, chief legal counsel for the Department of Labor and Industry, appeared as an informational witness and described how claims are handled: certified claims examiners investigate claims; insurers typically pay initial bills; and designation of a treating physician is uncommon in practice. O’Connor said the department’s experience shows designations are rare and that the larger problem is simply finding available providers in many Montana communities.

Committee members questioned proponents and informational witnesses about how designation works in practice and whether the bill would affect different workers’ compensation plans. Mazanec said the bill applies across plans and argued earlier treatment translates into lower overall claim costs and shorter time away from work; he referenced a study showing longer delays before initial medical contact in Montana compared with peer states.

No formal action was taken during the hearing. The bill will be available for committee amendment or executive action at a later date.

Why it matters: Montana has persistent provider shortages in rural areas. Committee supporters said the change removes a technical barrier that can keep a locally available PA from being the treating physician on a workers’ compensation claim; opponents said the bill does not change insurer authority and may not increase injured-worker choice.

The committee heard that the bill’s fiscal note is zero.

Looking ahead: Sponsors and agencies may supply draft amendments and additional evidence if the committee requests follow‑up analysis.