Connecticut 2015 Regular Session

Connecticut Senate Bill SB00006

Introduced
1/7/15  
Introduced
1/7/15  
Refer
1/7/15  
Refer
1/7/15  
Refer
3/4/15  
Refer
3/4/15  
Report Pass
3/17/15  
Report Pass
3/17/15  
Refer
3/26/15  
Refer
3/26/15  
Report Pass
4/1/15  

Caption

An Act Decreasing The Time Frames For Urgent Care Adverse Determination Review Requests.

Impact

The passage of SB00006 would have a significant impact on state laws related to health insurance and patient rights. It modifies existing statutes that govern how quickly health insurers must respond to reviews of care requests related to urgent needs. Specifically, it emphasizes the necessity for health carriers to prioritize the timely processing of urgent care requests. Consequently, the bill is likely to enhance the protections afforded to patients, ensuring they are not subjected to unnecessary delays, especially when immediate medical intervention is required.

Summary

Senate Bill 00006 aims to streamline the process of urgent care adverse determination reviews by decreasing the time frames within which health carriers must make decisions. The bill proposes to reduce the maximum time for health carriers to notify covered persons about urgent care decisions from seventy-two hours to forty-eight hours. This change is intended to ensure that patients receive timely decisions on their urgent care requests, aligning the response times more closely with the critical nature of their medical needs. By facilitating faster communication regarding care decisions, the bill seeks to improve patient outcomes in urgent medical situations.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding SB00006 appears to be positive, particularly among healthcare advocates and patients who may benefit from quicker access to needed care. Supporters argue that timely responses in urgent situations are crucial for patient health and safety. However, there may be concerns from health carriers regarding the feasibility of complying with the tightened timelines and the potential for increased operational pressures. While advocates view the bill as a necessary enhancement to patient rights, some insurers might argue that the changes could complicate workflows or lead to increased costs.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise from the implications of enforcing stricter compliance deadlines on health carriers. Critics could argue that the reduced time frames might compromise the quality of care decision-making, as insurers rush to meet deadlines. There may also be discussions on whether the bill places adequate resources at the disposal of health carriers to manage the increased volume of urgent care requests effectively. As stakeholders analyze the potential impact, the discussions may highlight the balance between expedited patient care and the operational realities of health insurance providers.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB395

Substance use treatment providers.

AZ HB2745

Court-ordered treatment; enhanced services

AZ SB1310

Court-ordered treatment; enhanced services.

AZ HB2944

Inpatient treatment days; computation; exclusion

CA SB349

California Ethical Treatment for Persons with Substance Use Disorder Act.

AZ HB2041

Mental health; voluntary evaluations; payment

CA AB1230

Gambling disorder prevention.

IA HF326

A bill for an act establishing a veterans recovery pilot program and fund for the reimbursement of expenses related to providing hyperbaric oxygen treatment to eligible veterans and making appropriations.(See HF 518.)