Connecticut 2015 Regular Session

Connecticut Senate Bill SB00249

Introduced
1/21/15  
Introduced
1/21/15  
Refer
1/21/15  
Refer
3/24/15  
Refer
3/24/15  
Report Pass
3/27/15  
Report Pass
3/27/15  
Refer
4/7/15  
Refer
4/7/15  
Report Pass
4/14/15  
Refer
4/22/15  
Report Pass
4/27/15  
Report Pass
4/27/15  
Report Pass
4/28/15  
Report Pass
4/28/15  
Refer
5/5/15  
Refer
5/5/15  
Report Pass
5/11/15  
Report Pass
5/11/15  
Report Pass
5/12/15  

Caption

An Act Concerning Disputes Between Hospitals Or Hospital Systems And Health Insurers.

Impact

The bill aims to ensure that patients continue to have access to in-network services even when there is a dispute between hospitals and insurers. By requiring binding arbitration, the law seeks to streamline resolutions and potentially reduce the incidence of hospital closures or service interruptions resulting from contract disagreements. This could lead to greater stability within the healthcare market, influencing how hospitals and insurers approach their contracts and negotiations in the future.

Summary

Senate Bill 00249 addresses disputes between hospitals or hospital systems and health insurers by establishing a binding arbitration process for contract negotiations. The legislation mandates that if a hospital and an insurer cannot reach an agreement at least 120 days before the expiration of their contract, either party can submit the disagreement to arbitration. This process is intended to provide a structured solution to prevent gaps in healthcare provider networks due to unresolved contractual issues.

Sentiment

The sentiment among lawmakers and stakeholders regarding SB00249 appears to be generally supportive, particularly among those who view the arbitration process as a necessary mechanism for maintaining healthcare access. However, concerns remain about the fairness and efficacy of arbitration as a substitute for direct negotiation. Stakeholders on both sides may have divergent views on whether this new process will successfully balance the interests of hospitals, insurers, and patients.

Contention

Notable points of contention revolve around the arbitration process's perceived impartiality and the implications for patient choice. Critics question whether arbitration can adequately address the complexities of healthcare negotiations, particularly in terms of preserving patient welfare while also accounting for the financial interests of the parties involved. There is an ongoing debate about the potential for the bill to inadvertently incentivize hospitals to opt for arbitration rather than pursuing equitable negotiations with insurers.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB954

Dental services: third-party network access.

DC B25-0265

Contract No. GAGA-2022-C-0259 with SodexoMagic, LLC Approval and Payment Authorization Emergency Act of 2023

TX SB543

Relating to oversight of and requirements applicable to state contracts and other state financial and accounting issues; authorizing fees.

TX HB1426

Relating to certain requirements applicable to contracts entered into by, and the contract management process of, state agencies.

MS HB934

Healthcare Contracting Simplification Act; create.

NJ S3443

Requires State Contract Managers to monitor work conducted by subcontractors on State contracts.

NJ A4487

Requires State Contract Managers to monitor work conducted by subcontractors on State contracts.

CA SB681

Public employees’ retirement: contracting agencies: termination.