Month: November 2017

Senate President Pro Tempore Looney: Contract Disputes Between Hospitals & Insurers Put Patient Care at Risk

Sen. Looney: Hospitals and the insurers have engaged in brinksmanship with a seeming disregard for the wellbeing of the patients

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney (D-New Haven) today testified before to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee pledging to introduce legislation in the 2018 session to protect health care consumers from losing network coverage during contract disputes between health systems and insurers.

Earlier this month, Hartford Healthcare and Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield announced an agreement ending a seven-week impasse that left tens of thousands of patients in Connecticut with limited options and access to treatment and skyrocketing costs.

“There have been numerous situations over the last few years in which contract disputes between hospitals and insurers put patient care at risk,” testified Senator Looney. “Both the hospitals and the insurers have engaged in brinksmanship with a seeming disregard for the wellbeing of the patients. This is an unacceptable situation for patients.”

Senator Looney continued, “This brinksmanship puts patient health at risk and exposes the fact that some sectors of our healthcare system put profits ahead of patients. The people of Connecticut deserve better.”

Senator Looney originally introduced legislation in 2015 requiring binding arbitration to resolve disputes between hospitals and insurers when the parties fail to reach an agreement.

Senator Looney testified that legislation addressing the issue should include the following elements:

• Require that the parties continue negotiating for a specified time and allow either party to request binding arbitration.
• Require that physicians cannot become out of network during the patient’s policy term. If a patient selects a plan that has the patient’s desired physician in-network, that physician shall not become out of network during the term of the policy.
• Require that during the time that the parties are negotiating after the insurer and the provider are no longer under contract with each other, the patient shall be held harmless and shall not have to pay more than the in-network cost sharing. The provider and the insurer shall either: 1. follow the reimbursement mechanism set up for out of network emergency services—the patient is held harmless and the provider is reimbursed at the greatest of the in-network rate, the Medicare rate, or 80 percent of the Usual and Customary rate—and the provider shall bill the insurer directly or 2. Continue under the terms of the expired contract until the dispute is resolved.
• Require that the terms of these agreements be made available to the insureds.
• During these insurer versus provider contract disputes allow policy holders to select a new policy without penalty even if this is occurring mid-year of the policy outside the normal enrollment period.

New Haven Legislators Announce State Bond Funding for Police Body Cameras

NEW HAVEN— Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Senator Gary Winfield (D-New Haven) and members of New Haven’s legislative delegation announced today the imminent approval of funding for body cameras for city police.

The State Bond Commission is expected approve $790,421 to reimburse the New Haven Police Department for the purchase of body-worn recording equipment and digital stage devices when it meets on November 29. New Haven is one of 14 municipal police departments set to receive this funding.

“In 2015, with Senate Democratic leadership, Connecticut became one of the first states in the country to establish a program to help municipalities pay for police body cameras and data storage. It’s great to see the New Haven Police Department has joined several other police departments across the state in taking advantage of this reimbursement program.” Sen. Looney said. “Community policing efforts in New Haven have increased greatly over time, and the implementation of body cameras just adds another layer of transparency and trust in the community.”

“There are many advantages to having police body cameras, but I think the most important aspect of this is the increase in transparency and accountability of police officers,” Sen. Winfield said. “As someone who has advocated for stronger police accountability laws in the state legislature, I believe this increased trust will play an important role in improving safety and the overall wellbeing of New Haven communities.”

“For years, body-worn cameras have proven to be powerful resources for police. This equipment holds both our officers and civilians to a higher standard by promoting accountability and deterring misconduct,” said State Representative Al Paolillo (D-New Haven). “By equipping our officers with body-worn cameras, not only are we restoring the public’s trust in law enforcement, but we are helping the police department build ties with our community and residents.”

“In the wake of recent high profile incidents, it is crucial that we put the necessary safeguards in place to promote police accountability and increase officer safety,” said State Representative Robyn Porter (D-New Haven). “Outfitting our men and women in blue with body-worn cameras will help deter officer and civilian misconduct, resolve complaints against police, and restore public trust in law enforcement. Securing this funding is a step toward creating a safer community for both our police officers and residents to live and work in.”

A total of $13 million was bonded for a major grant program to municipalities, beginning in last year. Moreover, starting in July 2016, all Connecticut State Troopers were required to wear body cameras while on duty and interacting with members of the public. The new law does not require any municipality to use police body cameras.

Basic guidelines for the use of cameras set forth in the bill include:

• Cameras must be worn above the midline of torso on outer-most garment.
• Cameras must conform to the approved minimal technical specifications.
• No person shall edit, erase, copy, share, alter or distribute any recordings.
• An officer may review recordings to assist with a report.
• If an officer is giving a formal statement in a disciplinary investigation, the officer can opt to review recordings of an incident in question.
• An officer shall not intentionally record:
• Communications with other officers
• Encounters with informants or undercover officers
• While on break or engaged in personal activity
• A person undergoing medical or psychological evaluation, procedure, or treatment
• While in a hospital, medical facility or mental health facility unless recording a suspect to a crime
• If these incidents are recorded, they are not subject to disclosure under FOI.

• Recordings of domestic or sexual abuse situations and recordings of a victim of homicide, suicide or a deceased victim of an accident shall NOT be subject to disclosure under FOI to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
• Officers must be trained in accordance with the bill in use of cameras and data retention.
• If an officer is aware that a camera is damaged, he or she must report it so that it is repaired or replaced.