Connecticut Senate Bill SB00192

Connecticut 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/14
• Refer: 2/19/14
• Report Pass: 3/6/14
• Refer: 3/13/14
• Report Pass: 3/19/14
• Engrossed: 4/30/14
• Report Pass: 5/1/14

Caption

An Act Concerning The Qualifications Of Clinical Peers For Adverse Determination Reviews.

Impact

The introduction of SB00192 is expected to strengthen state laws around adverse determination reviews by ensuring that clinical peers not only have formal qualifications but also specialized training relevant to the patient demographics they are assessing. By establishing clearer qualifications, the bill is likely to improve the consistency and reliability of healthcare decisions regarding patient treatment options, thereby better protecting patient interests and rights.

Summary

SB00192 aims to define the qualifications necessary for 'clinical peers' who are responsible for conducting adverse determination reviews in the healthcare system. The bill specifically revises existing definitions to ensure that clinical peers possess the requisite licenses, degrees, and board certifications necessary for their specialties. For instance, the bill requires that professionals evaluating child and adolescent behavioral health cases be specially trained in relevant areas, thus enhancing the quality of care and review processes for vulnerable populations.

Sentiment

Sentiment around the bill appears to be largely supportive among healthcare professionals and advocacy groups. Many stakeholders appreciate the focus on enhancing the qualifications of professionals involved in sensitive areas like mental health and substance use. However, some concerns have been raised about the potential for increased bureaucratic hurdles which may delay review processes. The overall sentiment reflects a balance between ensuring high-quality standards in healthcare and maintaining efficient operational processes.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding SB00192 include discussions about how stringent qualifications might inadvertently limit the pool of available clinical peers, potentially affecting the speed and efficiency of adverse determination reviews. Opponents argue that while the intent is to improve care quality, there could be unintended consequences leading to slower review processes that could be detrimental to patients awaiting treatment decisions. Stakeholders are advocating for careful scrutiny of the implementation to ensure that patient access to necessary treatments is not compromised.