Connecticut Senate Bill SB00316

Connecticut 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/24/10
• Refer: 2/24/10
• Report Pass: 3/11/10
• Refer: 3/22/10
• Report Pass: 3/29/10
• Refer: 4/8/10
• Report Pass: 4/14/10
• Report Pass: 4/16/10
• Refer: 4/21/10
• Report Pass: 4/27/10
• Engrossed: 5/1/10
• Report Pass: 5/1/10
• Chaptered: 5/19/10
• Enrolled: 5/24/10
• Passed: 6/8/10

Caption

An Act Establishing A Commission On Nonprofit Health And Human Services.

Impact

By setting up this commission, SB316 could significantly influence how nonprofit health and human service providers are funded in the state. It aims to generate a comprehensive understanding of the fiscal landscape in which these nonprofits operate. The expected recommendations from the commission will likely propose changes to budget allocations, policies, and regulations that govern how state funding is distributed to these vital service organizations.

Summary

Senate Bill 316 establishes a Commission on Nonprofit Health and Human Services tasked with examining the funding mechanisms provided to nonprofit entities that offer health and human services under purchase of service contracts. This bill aims to ensure that these service providers receive adequate support and that the efficiency of service delivery is maximized. The commission will analyze various cost factors associated with nonprofit services, including comparisons with state-provided services and potential savings from community-based care versus institutional care.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding SB316 appears to be supportive among those concerned with nonprofit health and human services. Lawmakers and advocacy groups see this initiative as a necessary step towards improving the sustainability of service provision in these critical areas. However, there may be underlying concerns regarding the adequacy of funding and oversight, as some stakeholders worry about ensuring that the recommendations from the commission translate into effective policy changes.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise during the commission's analysis, particularly around the evaluation of costs and effectiveness of nonprofit services compared to state-operated services. Discussions could center on the implications of funding decisions and whether the end recommendations will prioritize certain types of services over others, potentially leading to disparities in service availability. Additionally, the composition of the commission itself, with various stakeholders appointed from different perspectives, might lead to debates about representation and the balance of interests in the funding landscape.