Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Benefit Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Business and consumer groups back stronger health‑benefit review process in HB 6895
Summary
A coalition of business groups and consumer advocates urged the Insurance Committee to adopt changes to the state health‑benefit mandate review process so lawmakers can better assess cost and coverage impacts before new benefit mandates take effect.
Witnesses from industry, business groups and consumer advocates urged the Insurance and Real Estate Committee to strengthen Connecticut’s health‑benefit review process under House Bill 6,895.
Why it matters: State benefit mandates increase costs in the fully insured market, witnesses said. Advocates and business groups urged better, more routine actuarial review and public hearings to quantify potential premium impacts before the legislature votes on mandated benefits.
Liz DuPont Diehl of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group framed the issue as a consumer‑protection matter and pointed to broader concerns about insurer denials and profit motives. “What insurance companies call mandates are in fact protections for consumers,” she said, and argued that periodic cost reviews help separate genuine medical needs from insurer cost‑shifting.
JP Weiskin of the Health Benefit Institute described prior models for mandate review and noted that Connecticut’s existing program has been dormant: ‘‘By the time we finished our reports in 2013, there were 2,270 state mandates nationwide… Connecticut certainly followed that trend,’’ he said, urging a reinstated, transparent review process.
Grace Brangwyn of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association urged the committee to consider a framework similar to Massachusetts that would require an economic analysis for each new health‑benefit mandate and argued the bill would help small employers by making the cost implications clearer before mandates are enacted.
Supporters asked for a statutory process that (1) gives the committee direct access to actuarial cost estimates for considered mandates, (2) restores regular review activity at the Insurance Department, and (3) allows public informational hearings that include the Insurance Commissioner and health‑care cost analysts.
Where it stands: Committee members asked technical questions about federal interactions (Affordable Care Act rules) and how a federal change could shift state costs. No vote was taken; supporters asked the committee to consider tightening the bill language to require a review for every mandate and to clarify timing and methodology for cost estimates.
