Connecticut 2010 Regular Session

Connecticut House Bill HB05329

Introduced
2/24/10  
Refer
2/24/10  
Report Pass
3/4/10  
Refer
3/10/10  
Report Pass
3/16/10  

Caption

An Act Concerning Reimbursement Rates To Physicians Who Provide Emergency Room Services To Medicaid Recipients.

Impact

If enacted, HB 5329 would result in a shift in how Medicaid reimburses physicians for services delivered in emergency departments. By creating specific reimbursement structures for both emergency and non-emergency visits, the bill seeks to create a more cost-effective healthcare delivery system while ensuring that emergency services are adequately compensated. The regulation around reimbursement will be managed by the commissioner, who is tasked with defining the criteria for these visits, thus enabling regulatory oversight and accountability in the system.

Summary

House Bill 5329 addresses reimbursement rates for physicians providing emergency room services to Medicaid recipients. The bill aims to establish new criteria distinguishing between emergency and non-emergency visits to hospital emergency rooms. Under the proposed regulations, non-emergency visits will be reimbursed at the outpatient clinic services rate, while the rate for emergency room physicians who do not receive a hospital salary or subsidy will differ from the hospital's charges for services to the general public.

Sentiment

The general sentiment towards HB 5329 appears to be a mix of support and contention. Proponents argue that restructuring reimbursement rates could enhance the efficiency of emergency services by encouraging appropriate use of these facilities. They view the delineation of emergency versus non-emergency visits as a necessary step to mitigate unnecessary healthcare costs. Conversely, opponents may express concerns that the changes could limit access to emergency services for some Medicaid recipients, particularly if non-emergency visits lead to lower reimbursement rates, which could ultimately affect the availability and quality of care.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding the bill include debates on the definitions of what constitutes an emergency versus a non-emergency visit. Critics are likely to argue that such distinctions may lead to confusion or may deter patients from seeking timely care in emergency situations, raising the risk of worsening health outcomes. Additionally, adjustments in reimbursement could disproportionately affect certain demographics, particularly vulnerable populations reliant on Medicaid, prompting concerns about equitable treatment and access to essential health services.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CT HB05459

An Act Increasing Rates Of Medicaid Reimbursement For Certain Providers.

CT HB05365

An Act Concerning Technical Revisions To Statutes Concerning Human Services.

CT SB00367

An Act Concerning A Study To Maximize Medicaid Reimbursement For Uconn Health Center.

CT HB05427

An Act Concerning Nonemergency Medical Transportation.

CT HB05456

An Act Concerning Federally Qualified Health Centers.

CT SB00314

An Act Concerning Emergency Medicaid Coverage For Treatment Of Emergency Medical Conditions.

CT HB05240

An Act Concerning Medicaid Coverage For Infertility Treatment.

CT HB05426

An Act Concerning Energy Assistance Studies And Fuel Vendor Reimbursement.

CT SB00310

An Act Concerning Compensation For Family Caregivers, Retroactive Eligibility For Medicaid And Treatment Of Assets Discovered After An Application For Medical Assistance.

CT HB05374

An Act Concerning Annual Inflationary Rate Adjustments For Nonprofit Human Services Providers.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.