SEN. LESSER VOTES TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF DISABLED CT RESIDENTS FROM THE ABUSES OF THE TRUMP REGIME

HARTFORD – As the Trump regime slashes decades of disability rights advancements at the federal level, state Senator Matt Lesser (D-Middletown) and Senate Democrats today took action to ensure that those historic rights will continue to be available to disabled residents living and working in Connecticut.

Today, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 430, “AN ACT CODIFYING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,” which incorporates those historic federal protections into Connecticut law, and allows anyone aggrieved by an alleged ADA violation to file a complaint with Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities instead of at the federal level.

“Elon Musk and Donald Trump’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency took a wrecking ball to the federal staff who were in charge of enforcing the ADA. Now The National Federation of the Blind, the American Association of People with Disabilities, Deaf Equality, and others are suing the Trump administration over this,” said Sen. Lesser, who is Senate Chair of the Human Services Committee. “With this bill today we’re fixing a very important piece of federal law where you no longer have to appeal to Washington, D.C. if you believe your ADA rights have been violated; now you can appeal any violations directly and locally through Connecticut’s CHRO.”

The Trump regime has been systematically dismantling various federal ADA protections for the past year. 

In March 2025, the Department of Justice withdrew 11 pieces of guidance related to the ADA, including information on accessible parking, fitting rooms, and effective communication in hotel and hospital settings. The DOJ cited the move as an effort to reduce regulatory burdens on businesses. Disability rights advocates argue that removing ADA guidance leaves businesses without clear information on how to accommodate, which may lead to a decrease in accessibility standards.

Trump executive orders targeting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) in the federal government have been seen as direct attacks on accessibility, potentially removing support for disabled federal employees and altering workplace accommodations.

A July 2025 Trump executive order encouraging the involuntary commitment of individuals with mental health disabilities was criticized for potentially violating the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision and the core tenets of the ADA. The Court held in 1999 that Title II of the ADA requires public entities to administer services in the “most integrated setting appropriate” to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.

Advocacy groups have also raised alarms about reduced staff and funding in federal offices tasked with enforcing disability civil rights, including the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, and proposals to cut Medicaid funding are viewed as a threat to the independence of people with disabilities, potentially forcing them into institutions rather than allowing them to live in their communities.

###

SENS. LESSER & CABRERA: HOW MUCH DID CT FINE INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR SHORT-CHANGING MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENTS?

HARTFORD – Just days after the state Insurance Department issued a report saying it has fined five Connecticut insurance companies for short-changing customers seeking mental health treatments, state Senators Matt Lesser (D-Middletown) and Jorge Cabrera (D-Hamden) have written a letter asking the commissioner: How much did you fine them?

The Insurance Department never specified its penalties, which are capped at $625,000 if an insurance company fails to file its annual mental health compliance certifications.

Sens. Lesser and Cabrera are arguing not just for tough fines, but also for tougher follow-up enforcement actions to prevent future occurrences.

“Several carriers refused to provide adequate comparative analyses… even after multiple follow-up interrogatories from the Department. This conduct reflects non-cooperation that, in our view, warrants serious consideration in determining the appropriate scope of penalties,” Sens. Lesser and Cabrera wrote on April 17. “We respectfully urge the Department to ensure that this enforcement action goes beyond financial penalties alone.”

Sen. Lesser – who is Senate Chair of the Human Services Committee – and Sen. Cabrera – who is Senate Chair of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee – suggest the Insurance Department adopt the “Kennedy Forum’s Gold Standards for Corrective Enforcement Actions” which includes formal corrective action plans with clear timelines and measurable benchmarks and reimbursement to enrollees for out-of-network costs incurred as a result of the insurance company’s violations.

The Kennedy Forum document can be found here.

“States including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and California have successfully deployed these tools in parity enforcement actions, and Connecticut could do the same,” the senators said. “While financial penalties are an important means of holding insurers accountable, changed insurer behavior and equal access to care are the ultimate goals of parity enforcement.”

In the meantime, Sens. Lesser and Cabrera are asking the Insurance Department to answer four questions: 

1. What are the specific fine amounts assessed against each of the five carriers, and how were these amounts calculated?
2. What is the Department’s process and timeline for finalizing enforcement actions and making penalty determinations public?
3. Does the Department intend to require formal corrective action plans from the cited carriers, and if so, what elements will those plans be required to address?
4. What is the Department’s plan for ensuring that the violations identified in this report result in durable changes in carrier practices?

Last week’s Insurance Department report found that:

• Several insurance companies submitted reports that lacked details about case management, clinical auditing, and drug screening/testing;
• There were “material operational disparities” affecting policyholder access to mental health and substance use disorder networks across all five insurance companies;
• All five insurance companies maintained “non-comparative reimbursement rate methodologies” when compared to their medical and surgical reimbursement rates;
• All five carriers need to strengthen their evaluation of unequal outcome data and identify corrective actions.

In 2019, the General Assembly passed a bill requiring more mental health parity from insurance companies so that their networks and payments more closely mirrored those of medical/surgical patients. Last year, Democrats passed Senate Bill 10, which requires health carriers to annually file a mental health parity compliance certification with the state Insurance Department, which then makes public a carrier’s compliance – or lack of compliance with Connecticut’s mental health parity laws.

The 2025 bill allows the Insurance Department to fine insurance companies up to a maximum of $625,000 if they fail to file these annual mental health compliance certifications.

 
###