Connecticut House Bill HB05170

Connecticut 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/11/11
• Refer: 1/11/11

Caption

An Act Concerning The Insurance Department And Rate Increases.

Impact

If enacted, HB 05170 would impose regulations that could significantly alter the landscape of health insurance in the state. One of the key provisions of the bill includes a moratorium on health insurance rate increases until the regulations established by the Insurance Department are in place. This delay is intended to safeguard consumers from unjustified increases while ensuring that the insurance market operates under clearer guidelines. Moreover, the bill establishes a medical loss ratio of at least 85%, mandating that a substantial portion of premium revenue be spent on healthcare services rather than administrative costs or profit margins.

Summary

House Bill 05170 is designed to address concerns regarding health insurance rate increases in the state. The bill requires the Insurance Department to establish regulations that identify potential reasons for rate increases and quantify justifiable increases for each identified reason. One of the primary objectives of this legislation is to provide greater transparency and accountability in how insurance companies adjust their rates, thereby protecting consumers from sudden and unexplained premium hikes. Additionally, the bill aims to ensure that health insurance premiums are being allocated towards healthcare services rather than utilized for political activities by insurers.

Contention

Notably, the bill seeks to prohibit insurers from using premiums collected from state residents for political activities. This aspect has triggered discussions regarding the potential implications for insurers' political contributions and their influence on public policy. Supporters of the bill argue that such provisions are essential for maintaining ethical standards within the insurance industry and protecting consumer interests. However, opponents may raise concerns about the freedom of insurers to engage in political advocacy, arguing that it could inadvertently stifle their ability to lobby for necessary regulatory changes.