Seasonal Respiratory Illnesses Hitting Harder Amid Flagging Vaccine Uptake

By Joe O’Leary

October 18 @ 1:00 pm

Connecticut’s dashboard built to track statistics related to illnesses – COVID, influenza and RSV – is now up and running as the state enters the respiratory virus season, which runs from October to June.

Statistics showcase a fall in reported COVID cases in October after an extended plateau of cases in the summer. The state experienced 109 reported deaths from COVID from August to October and 19 total hospitalizations from the flu so far this season.

The available data reveals an interesting trend. As of October 12, about 202,189 Connecticut residents – representing about 5.6% of the state’s population – have received the latest updated COVID vaccine after it became available in September.

However, uptake of the seasonal influenza vaccine, also available since September, is almost exactly double that amount, at 406,145 people and about 11.3% of the state. Why are twice as many people receiving the flu vaccine compared to the COVID vaccine?

The trend likely contributed to an increase in hospitalizations, described recently by Connecticut Department of Public Health Commissioner Manisha Juthani, who said in the 2023-24 respiratory virus season, 88% of COVID-related hospitalizations occurred in people who were not up to date on their COVID vaccines, which have released once a year in late summer since 2022.

The impact of these statistics has been exacerbated by age: 70% of people who were hospitalized for COVID in that time were ages 65+, the biggest risk factor for negative COVID outcomes.

However, state data shows that vaccination rates for COVID and flu are wildly different for those key age ranges. For residents ages 60-69, coverage for COVID is just 11% while flu is 16%; for ages 70-79, COVID coverage is 21%, while flu coverage is 28%; and COVID coverage is 20% for ages 80+ but 28% for flu.

According to Gallup, a similar trend was spotted last year. As of Dec. 20, 2023, Gallup said, only 29% of Americans received an updated COVID shot, while 47% received the flu shot by that time. This came after more than 70% of Americans received at least one COVID vaccine in 2020 and 2021.

Gallup spotted discrepancies in COVID rates that aligned with political ideology. While nearly half of Democrats had received the shot last year, only 10% of Republicans did, and 82% of Republicans said they weren’t receiving the updated COVID shot, compared to 52% of Republicans who received flu shots.

A Gallup survey of those who did not receive vaccine doses said they most commonly turned down shots because they believed they had antibodies against the virus, were concerned about the vaccine’s safety and did not believe it was effective, with a number also saying they believed they wouldn’t suffer health complications should they get COVID, underscoring a larger belief that COVID was less of a concern than it once was.

The Kaiser Family Foundation also reported last year that vaccine attitudes and uptake can differ among Republicans compared to their support of Donald Trump and the “Make America Great Again,” or MAGA, movement.

It found that supporters of MAGA were 10% less likely to receive a COVID vaccine, with rates falling to 20% among MAGA supporters under the age of 50. Two-thirds of MAGA Republicans said they would “definitely not” get an updated COVID vaccine, and MAGA Republicans were also less likely to get any vaccine, including the flu shot.

These factors correlated to MAGA Republicans being less likely to believe any vaccine, including RSV and flu shots, were safe to take. Whether this was due to misinformation or personality type was not identified.

Regardless of reason, reduced vaccine uptake makes public health officials’ jobs more challenging, as reduced vaccination rates often correlate to higher prevalence of illness in the community. Commissioner Juthani said that Connecticut has already seen two deaths from flu and dozens of COVID deaths in recent months as of October, underscoring a need for greater uptake – those who died were, respectively, at least 90 years old and just two months old.

Updated flu, COVID and RSV vaccines are available at local pharmacies and doctor’s offices for all eligible Connecticut residents.

New Grants Fund Broadband Improvements in More than Half of Connecticut Towns

By Hugh McQuaid

October 17 @ 5:00 am

Broadband projects in towns and cities across Connecticut will receive a boost through the release of $28 million in grants meant to support the expansion of broadband infrastructure, Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration announced last week.

The grants will offset the costs of projects to bolster access to high-speed Internet at more than 3,000 locations across the state.

Funding for the grants come from the federal American Rescue Plan Act and has been released under the ConneCTed Communities Grant Program. The initial round of grants will benefit 88 towns and cities, which accounts for more than half of the state’s 169 municipalities.

In a press release, Lamont said the funding represented a critical step in Connecticut’s push to make broadband more widely available.

“The expansion of broadband infrastructure will make Connecticut’s towns and cities stronger, more resilient, and better positioned to engage in today’s increasingly digitized world,” Lamont said.

The largest single grant in the program’s first round went to Comcast, which received more than $21 million to support upgrade projects at nearly 2,100 locations spread across more than 75 Connecticut municipalities.

The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection began accepting applications for the second round of funding earlier this month. The agency is expected to release another $12.8 million in grants to support infrastructure enhancements, including support for projects at multi-dwelling homes in distressed municipalities.

The state legislature approved the funds to build out Connecticut’s broadband infrastructure through a bill in 2021. The legislation passed unanimously through the state Senate.

When the proposal was raised for a public hearing, John Erlingheuser, advocacy director for the state AARP, testified in support of the bill, saying the grants would help Connecticut ensure that its older residents had access to affordable and reliable Internet.

“Among other things, high-speed internet access allows older residents to overcome social isolation through virtual visitation with friends and family, and staying connected to houses of worship, senior centers, libraries and more,” he said.

Legislation Leads to Regulatory Proposal Reducing Natural Gas Costs

By Joe O’Leary

October 15 @ 5:00 am

The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) issued a draft decision this month proposing to decrease the revenue of Connecticut Natural Gas and Southern Connecticut Gas after the utility companies submitted information for a proposed rate increase.

While the companies were seeking increases to their revenue requirements of $19.7 million and $43.24 million, PURA’s decision would instead decrease their revenue by $38.76 million and $36.6 million.

This decision, which was hailed by legislators and decried by the president and CEO of the utility companies, was strengthened by legislation passed in 2020 to hold state utilities more accountable and allow for increased regulatory power.

The state legislature passed the Take Back Our Grid Act of 2020 after Tropical Storm Isaias caused severe damage and extended power outages across Connecticut. The law gave PURA more power to evaluate company performance during rate amendment proposals. Meanwhile, Senate Bill 7 of 2023, An Act Strengthening Protections for Energy Consumers, required PURA to consider several factors when determining a reasonable rate of return.

In this case, the Office of Consumer Counsel and the attorney general called on PURA to conduct a full financial review of CNG due to well-documented over-earnings. Upon PURA’s notice, both Avangrid subsidiaries filed a rate increase application. PURA was able to review the rationale of the companies’ earnings thanks to the flexibility provided in the legislation.

In its decision, PURA concluded that SCG should return $85 million, which regulators deemed were overcharges to customers, including $67 million due to federal tax changes and surplus revenues from gas sales, while CNG was required to return $24 million in surplus collections including those from gas sales and hardship deferrals.

If finalized, these reductions will lower consumers’ bills by an average $12-13 per month across all customer classes.

The Take Back Our Grid Act also provided PURA the ability to evaluate a company’s performance during rate request proposals; in its draft decision in the CNG and SCG case, PURA cited several issues with SCG’s performance, including its dedication to customer service.

Take Back Our Grid and 2023’s Senate Bill 7 were both designed to enhance the regulatory ability of organizations like PURA, including disallowing costs related to investor relations, membership dues and sponsorships, lobbying expenses, and rate case preparation and participation costs incurred by utility companies.

In those two cases, over a million dollars related to these line items were not permitted to be recovered through CNG and SCG customer bills as a result of these legislative changes.

In a statement last week, leaders of the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee, including state Sens. Norm Needleman and Doug McCrory, said the preliminary decision validated the pro-consumer policies enacted by their panel.

“While this decision is not final, we believe that any help for ratepayers of gas and electric companies as a result of rate cases justifies our legislative decisions to require those rate cases more frequently than they were held in the past,” the committee leadership said. “This decision, if it stands, will save consumers money. We are validated that this ruling, pending final action, is indicative of the work we’ve done – Take Back Our Grid in 2020 and Senate Bill 7 in 2023 – to make sure utilities are being held accountable through the legislative process.”

Florida’s Housing Market Stalls as Connecticut Surges

By Hugh McQuaid

October 15 @ 5:00 am

As demand for homes in Connecticut continues to outpace supply, the Wall Street Journal published a new report this week detailing a sputtering housing market in Florida, where homes are increasingly hard to sell due to declining interest from buyers.

Connecticut’s popularity among prospective homebuyers has helped to fuel a housing shortage that has contributed to a surging home market.

Real estate brokerage Redfin estimates that the number of homes sold in the state increased 1.1% over the last year as median home prices grew by 8%. Meanwhile, the site reported that Connecticut homes spent a median of about 33 days on the market before they were snatched up by buyers.

Compare those numbers to Florida, where Redfin estimated that a median home spent more than two months on the market — an increase of about 18 days in just the last year — while median home prices declined.

Why are homes in Florida increasingly hard to sell?

According to the Wall Street Journal, high mortgage rates and spiking insurance costs have made Florida’s once-booming housing market unaffordable and undesirable for many families.

The WSJ interviewed Anthony Holmes, a former Virginia resident who moved to Tampa in 2021. Holmes told the newspaper he was now looking to leave Florida, but had been unable to sell his house, despite making tens of thousands of dollars in home improvements and cutting his asking price multiple times.

“I can’t unload the thing,” Holmes told the Wall Street Journal. “In eight months, I’ve had zero offers. No one even showed up to the open houses. Nobody.”

As climate change has contributed to more frequent and severe weather events, Florida has experienced an increasing number of destructive storms.

Damage wrought by these storms has made homes in Florida difficult to insure. In some areas of Florida, insurance premiums have increased as much as 400% in just the last five years, the Wall Street Journal reported.

While Florida struggles with waning interest from homebuyers, Connecticut Democrats have committed to encouraging more housing development in order to meet the needs of the growing number of families wishing to reside in the state.

Last month, Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff and House Majority Leader Jason Rojas explained the need to promote more development in order to support Connecticut’s economic growth.

“Our nation is in the midst of a housing crisis, and the only real solution is to build more homes and welcome more neighbors into our communities,” the majority leaders wrote. “Here in Connecticut, we have a responsibility to be part of that solution.”