Connecticut Senate Bill SB00243

Connecticut 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/27/18
• Refer: 2/27/18
• Report Pass: 3/22/18
• Refer: 3/28/18
• Report Pass: 4/4/18
• Engrossed: 5/7/18
• Report Pass: 5/8/18
• Chaptered: 5/18/18
• Enrolled: 5/22/18
• Passed: 6/1/18

Caption

An Act Concerning Audits Of Medical Assistance Providers.

Impact

The changes introduced by SB00243 aim to protect healthcare providers from sudden or unexpected audits, thereby fostering a more conducive environment for compliance. By establishing clear protocols and allowing providers a minimum of thirty days to prepare for audits, the legislation seeks to mitigate misunderstandings and disputes regarding audit practices. Additionally, the bill stipulates that audits will not include claims older than thirty-six months, further easing the compliance burden on providers.

Summary

Senate Bill No. 243, titled 'An Act Concerning Audits of Medical Assistance Providers,' seeks to refine and clarify the auditing process for providers participating in medical assistance programs. The bill mandates that providers receive written notification at least thirty days prior to any audit, which must include essential details about the audit process such as the methodology and relevant personnel. These requirements are proposed to enhance transparency and ensure that providers understand what is expected of them during the audit process.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB00243 appears to generally favor increased transparency and fairness in the auditing process for medical assistance providers. Supporters view the bill as a necessary reform to ensure that audits are conducted fairly and without undue surprise, allowing providers to rectify potential discrepancies more effectively. There may be some apprehension among opponents related to the effectiveness of oversight in preventing fraud, yet the predominant sentiment supports the bill as a means to enhance provider compliance and reduce administrative hurdles.

Contention

While most discussions around the bill have been positive, there are concerns about whether the protections for providers could unintentionally allow for continued vendor fraud or errors in billing. Critics might argue that while the bill provides necessary safeguards for providers, it must balance the need for effective oversight and accountability to prevent abuse of the medical assistance system. Thus, the legislation highlights a tension between supporting provider compliance and ensuring robust mechanisms are in place to prevent fraud and protect the integrity of medical assistance programs.