CT House Floor Session — 2026-04-23

Top of the morning, members and staff, please rise, direct your attention to the dais where Deputy Chaplain Monts will lead us in prayer. Good to see you. How are you?

Appreciate it. And the Pledge of Allegiance will be Representative Belton from the great City of Middletown, the 100th District.

What is on the clerk's desk?

Nice. Announcement and introduction, Representative Johnson of the 49th. What do you have?

sn/rr 4 I just wanted to announce that tomorrow at 3 o' clock, we'll begin the diabetes caucus. You will receive another notification of this, and we will be hosting it also in the Public Health Committee's conference room if you care to stop by. I'm very, very pleased. We've gotten a lot of good remarks back from people on the diabetes caucus. This is something that's very near and dear to me, having family members who've had Type 2 diabetes and finding out that if you don't get any notification about it from your doctor and if your family doesn't tell you that they have Type 2 diabetes, you also may have Type 2 diabetes, but you can stay pre-diabetic with certain things. The other thing is I lost a good friend to Type 1 diabetes in her early 30's because the family didn't know about the fact that she had diabetes when she was born. So I think diabetes has, it's really prevalent all throughout Connecticut, all throughout the nation. I have a national expert to come to talk to us, and then we will also bring in other experts from all over the state to help people get information. It's what I like to do, is provide information to people. sn/rr 5 I've been volunteering as a radio co-host for 25 years for free, with my husband. And, this is just another kind of extension of how I want to make sure I get information out to people. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I will speak really quickly in point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker, today, I have with me in the chamber my very best friend from the time I was a freshman in high school, so almost 40 years we don't like to talk about it, Erica J. Davis, and one of my other longtime friends who was actually a teacher at our high school, Mary K. Popak. And I'm just so grateful that they are shadowing me today and are joining us to see all of the good work we get done in this building. Please give them a round of applause, and please stand up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege. Ladies and gentlemen, it is our daily reminder of our annual veteran suit drive this April 30th. My colleagues and I, in sn/rr 7 the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee ask you that you search your hearts and your wardrobes for extra suits for our heroes. You can deposit them at any time at my office. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have an announcement if I may proceed.

Well, you may notice some young people around me. I just would like to introduce my daughter, Christina, and I'm not going to name all the children, but she has, part of the families here today. And Christina and her hubby are a homeschooling family. And this is the product we have here, with these fine young people. And I just wanted to introduce them to this great chamber today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

I rise today to recognize and celebrate the Academy of Science and Innovation Girls Basketball Team for an extraordinary historic season. This year, the team advanced to the 2026 CIAC Division 5, State Championship Game finishing as state championship runner- up. In addition to their success on the court, they earned an exemplifying, sorry, I apologize. They earned the Greater Hartford Conference Sportsmanship Award, exemplifying not only the athletic excellence, but also integrity, respect, and character. Several players received well deserved individual honors. Mayara Rodriguez was named All State twice, while Kalani Riviera, Simba Sutton, Maya Saldana, and Mayara Rodriguez earned all-conference recognition. These accomplishments reflect the dedication of the student athletes, the leadership of their coaches, and the strong support of their school community. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Academy of Science and Innovation Girls Basketball Team on their sn/rr 10 outstanding achievements and wishing them the continued success in all the years ahead. Congratulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A little housekeeping. I move we refer Calendar items 405 and 231 to the Appropriations Committee.

sn/rr 11 Any objection? Seeing none, so ordered. Let's get down to business. Representative Kavros DeGraw. Sorry. Calendar 188.

Chair, I recognize Representative Turco, the Vice Chairman of the General Law Committee from the 27th District, proudly representative of the Town of Newington, the City of New Britain. You have the floor, Sir.

sn/rr 12 Questions, acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. You may proceed, Sir.

Good morning, everybody. Will the clerk please call LCO number 4175, House Amendment "A"?

The representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Are there any objections or summarization? Is there any objection? Hearing none. Representative Turco. sn/rr 13

You have the floor.

The question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark further? Representative Rutigliano, you're good. Representative Turco, the floor is yours.

The question for the chamber is House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark further? Is everybody okay with a voice vote? [background noise] Accepted. Proceed. [gavel]

Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please say, Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Getting ahead of myself there. Excited that, we're starting a new day here in the legislature that did the good work of the people. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a consumer protection bill, to ensure transparency and protections of consumers when they're being solicited by third party financial products, such as high interest credit cards that can have, 33% or more interest when receiving health care services. Mr. Speaker, the bill does not regulate what financial products consumers use to pay for their services. It does not regulate third party financial products themselves. But what it does do, Mr. Speaker, is regulate business practices to protect consumers based on numerous complaints from Connecticut residents who are sometimes solicited for these third party financial products when they are receiving health care services and may be in a vulnerable situation, may feel pressure. sn/rr 16 Sometimes we've even heard stories about being under sedation or anesthesia and being solicited. So we're trying to ensure that the consumers are protected from these situations in the bill. And I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, again that this amendment, which is now the bill, has been great work coming together from, the industry, from providers, and from our Republican colleagues. And I really want to thank our ranking member, Representative David Rutigliano, because him and I, I think it was back over the summer, started discussing this issue. We learned about the problem and we said something needs to be done in the General Law Committee, and here we are bipartisanly, going to get it done. So, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move adoption.

sn/rr 17 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words by the good vice chair of the General Law Committee. I do support the bill. I wanted to just go over a few things in the bill just so we have some clarity in the chamber on what we're all voting on.

Representative Turco.

Thank you, representative. Representative Rutigliano.

Representative Turco.

Representative Rutigliano.

Representative Turco.

Representative Rutigliano. sn/rr 22

--and we have to write this in the statute, but, apparently, we do. Through you, Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that you can't offer a financial credit product to a patient while that consumer is under the influence of general anesthesia, unconscious, moderated, or sedated through nitrous oxide? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

sn/rr 23 Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's, yes. That is what the bill would prohibit. It's unfortunate. I agree that it has to be included there. But unfortunately, there have been consumer complaints around the nation, even an individual here in Connecticut that testified to the General Law Committee that they were solicited to sign up for a product when they were under, anesthesia. I would say, Mr. Speaker that, that provision and most of the provisions in the bill, almost all providers are already adhering to. This bill is really, really trying to just ensure that those bad actors, don't continue practice as they should be. Any ethical providers probably never doing that, throughout their practice. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the good vice chair of general law. I only ask those few questions just to point out sn/rr 24 what I think was reasonable compromises put into this legislation, a legislation that I fully support. The fact that we have to write into law that you're not supposed to solicit somebody with a financial instrument while they're on, and under anesthesia just means that there needs to be some regulations in this marketplace. I thought the good vice chair compromised well. These products are still available to people who need them. If you're having a hard time paying for a medical service, or a veterinary service, or dental service, you can take advantage of some of these vehicles that have, 18 months interest free as long as you pay it back. Quite frankly, in my world, my versions of the bill would be stronger than this bill. The fact that some of these companies are charging 32.9% interest is offensive. In fact, we learned through testimony that if you're late on a payment, the interest rate can go to 39.9. Have you ever heard of anything more usury in your entire life? So I don't want anybody to think I don't support the legislation because I do. I think this puts some reasonable parameters on a financial vehicle that's available to people. There sn/rr 25 are some people that will take advantage of it, will be able to use it. But you know what? I think, the fact that we have to sit here and say, if you're lying in the chair and you've already had some Novocain and some other sort of sedation, maybe we shouldn't be sitting there putting a piece of paper in front of you for you to sign for a financial product that could possibly be a 39 percentages. So I wanted to thank the good chair and vice chair, general law. I think this is a good piece of legislation. I think it's common sense to put some parameters on how people can get themselves into serious debt, which in turn could negatively affect their lives over time. So with that, I urge adoption. I certainly support the bill, and thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Great to see you as always. Just a couple of questions to the good chair of--

Representative Turco.

Representative Yaccarino.

Representative Turco.

Representative Yaccarino.

Representative Turco.

Thank you, representative. Representative Yaccarino, please re-explain for clarity.

Representative Turco.

Representative Yaccarino.

Thank you, Representative Yaccarino. Will you remark further on the bill as amended. Representative Ackert, the 8th District. Sir, you have the floor. Good morning.

Mr. Speaker, I have a beloved pet I'm bringing to my veterinarian. Don't actually have the resources needed at the time when they've given me the quote. They got to give you the quote. Here's what it's going to cost to help my beloved pet. I go up there and I say, I don't have the resources. What do you advise me? Well, can the receptionist or person at the desk say, there's information over there if you're interested. In the waiting room, in the area outside of the service sn/rr 36 area, is that allowed? Through you, Mr. Speaker, with this legislation.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Short answer, yes. Little longer answer, thanks to the good representatives, comments and concerns expressed in committee. As he said, we all work together bipartisanly and with the industry and consumers, to make the bill better. So I can, confidently say yes to him. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

And that's the crust of this because we had heard some stories that people were not in their right state of mind or condition at sn/rr 37 the time that they're, oh, if you want me to do this service, and they're I don't want you to do whatever for my teeth, whatever it may be. And in that position, you do not want to be trying to give them information on a financial decision when they're in that place. But if you say, hey, there's some information over on the desk. If that's something that will help you, super, make a decision on your financial status. But all then, it's buyers beware in any contract, right. No matter what you do for a loan or a credit card, whatever, read the print. Make sure you're doing your due diligence when you sign up for this. Because to be honest, if I was in that position, I had 18 months of interest free making my payments along the way. That may be the only way that I could do it financially. But if you don't make your payments, you've got to understand the penalty. That is the key about any product that's out there. The product is still available. You can still use the product. You can still sign up for these cards. sn/rr 38 It is actually the promotional time that is the key component here. We aren't regulating the credit card. So, through you Mr. Speaker, we're not regulating the credit card in any way. Is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. No.

Exactly. And that is the key that the credit card was concerned about. Wait a minute. I had a whole conversation about how your municipality yesterday, can charge you 18%. You have no choice on that, if you miss a payment. You don't have no choice because that's, we put that in law. sn/rr 39 Here, we're not regulating that credit card in terms of what they're doing. What we're doing is, there's a time and a place to promote it and it's not when you're having a procedure. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the final product that came out of this. As a good ranking member said, some credit cards are, they really take advantage of individuals. But buyer beware when you sign a contract, but I thank you for where this product ended up, and I can be in support of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all acknowledge that there are a lot of poor people in this state. And many of those poor people have pets. They have cats. They have dogs. They have other types of animals. sn/rr 40 And when those animals are sick or injured, and the owners care very much for these animals, they bring them to the vet. And they hope that the vet can make them whole again, can make them well. But a lot of the time that care is very expensive. And there are times when poor people simply cannot afford the care that their pets need. So there are situations where a pet owner or an animal owner, could be livestock, could be a household pet. There are situations where they have two choices. One is, put the animal down, allow the animal to die, or the other option is get some type of financing for the animals care. So I have heard stories from vets about situations where the- -, this is a long time family pet that the family loves dearly, carries the pet into the vet's office and says, please help us. And the vet gives them the estimate for the bill which is way above what the family can afford. So the family has no choice but to either allow the animal to die or find a finance mechanism. And that finance mechanism is a high risk finance mechanism, for poor people who are paying this money to save their beloved pet. So because it's high risk, it will of course be high interest. sn/rr 41 Because the financial institution needs to be able to make money too. They're not necessarily taking advantage of the situation. They are pricing their product, which is a loan at a market rate where they can recover it in a high risk environment. So any bill that would prohibit or significantly limit how a veterinary facility, can allow a family of limited means with no other options to save the life of their pet. Any bill that would restrict that, I think is not looking at the unintended consequences. Is not looking at the people who need to use this product. And it puts extreme strain on the limited means families and also on the veterinary office. Because many veterinary offices have one vet, maybe an office administrator, and maybe a vet tech. There's not a huge staff to handle all the paperwork that the people in this building are oh so wonderful at forcing on people. Through you, Mr. Speaker, a few questions to the proponent if I may.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, are veterinary offices covered by this bill? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make some clarification so we can have an understanding of what's in this legislation and what's not, to the good representative. So I just want to make sure the representative understands, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no prohibition in this bill for a consumer using any product they want to use to pay for the veterinarian service. They could sign up for any third party product. They can use any third party product. There is no prohibition on the sn/rr 43 advertising, the soliciting, the providing the information to the consumer, the owner of the pet, in the veterinarian facility as long as it's not the treatment room. What we're trying to avoid is, your dog is getting surgery and you're being solicited to sign up for the product in that room. As long as they go out of that room, the provider can have a conversation and sign them up for, unfortunately, a credit card that has 200% interest. There's nothing in this bill that prohibits that. And we do have an exemption to address concerns that if that particular practice doesn't have another room, meaning the room that the veterinarian is providing the service to that animal is the only room. There's no room they can step outside to the hall to have the conversation. That's an exemption. And then the veterinarian could say, here, you need help paying? Here is the information. I agree with the representative. As much as I think these products with these interest rates, could be sometimes predatory, I agree with the representative that there are people sometimes that have no alternatives. And that's sn/rr 44 why we wrote this bill to make sure that they still have access and they can use the products. One last thing, Mr. Speaker. I want to make sure the good representative knows. We worked with the Connecticut Veterinarians Association on the bill. They've signed off on the bill. We addressed their concerns on the bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I very much appreciate that answer. Through you, what about, on-site vet visits when the vet travels to the pet owners home or farm, how is that handled? Through you.

sn/rr 45 Through you, Mr. Speaker, that would fall under, there is no other, they're not an office setting. There's no other space to go to. They're there in that open area providing the service. So that same prohibition is not going to, apply like it does in a particular facility or office. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that answer. Now I do see a Section, starting on line 102 of the amendment that has a bunch of language that needs to be incorporated, I believe, into the agreement. Is that something that the vet office needs to comply with, or is that something that the credit card company would comply with? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So this is a very important part of the bill to improve transparency for Connecticut resident consumers. So it would be the provider's office. When they are providing the information on these third party financing products, they have to provide this disclosure form to the consumer. Because what we've heard is a lot of people are very confused with the terms and conditions. I mean, the terms and conditions for one of these products is over 20 pages if you were to go online and read it. So this is a simple one page disclosure agreement. Again, we worked, with the industry, the financial industry to write this, also with the veterinarians association, and it is in other state laws. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

sn/rr 47 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, just so I'm clear, the credit card company, the credit card provider would provide this form to the veterinary office. And when somebody seeks to get information on the credit card, the office would simply hand them a form that the credit card company had already prepared. Do I have that right? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I can't say who is going to actually print it out. It could be the third financial company, hands the provider a stack of them with all of the advertising materials that they give to providers in their offices, or they may say to the providers, you need to print this out in your office and ensure when a consumer asks you about this product and you give them materials, you give them the disclosure. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, other than disclosure requirements, are there any other type of restrictions or limitations on a veterinary office in this bill? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. As we talked about, there can't be the advertising soliciting, in the treatment rooms unless that's the only room that they have. They cannot receive any financial compensation for helping sign up, the consumer for these products. And if they sell ancillary products, if they sell and there's actually an exemption for dog food, but, pet food. Sorry. The cat food too. If they sell an ancillary product, let's say a lotion that you're going to put on your dog's paw because it's raw or something like that, they have to provide you with an itemized sn/rr 49 receipt that shows that you've been charged for that, if they're going to charge one of these medical credit cards. If they don't want to provide an itemized receipt, they have to provide you with a disclosure where you sign saying you're going to be charged for this on that medical credit card. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Alright. Thank you. I very much appreciate the good proponents responses, and I will listen to the debate. Thank you.

sn/rr 50 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few questions to the proponent, if I may.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, to the proponent of the bill. Can the proponent tell us if this bill was referred to the Bank's Committee? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. No. This bill was not referred to the Banking Committee on recommendation from our legislative commissioner's office that it is not a mandatory deferral. But also, Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately are not regulating any sn/rr 51 financial products, credit cards, banks, or anything like that in the bill. These are federally chartered banks that own these financial products, so Connecticut doesn't have the authority to regulate, other major players in this medical credit card industry. We're regulating business practices to protect consumers, in this legislation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So, yes, I heard the representation, several times now today that this bill does not regulate the financial product. And, just heard the good representatives reference to the fact that this is a federally chartered bank that may be a federally chartered bank. But, through you, Mr. Speaker, does this bill necessarily, apply only to federally chartered banks? Through you. sn/rr 52

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. It could apply to any third party financial product. But again, we're not regulating the third party financial products themselves. We're regulating, the health care providers and the way that they advertise and market these products, under our consumer protection laws. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. The good representative mentioned third party financing. There's a definition of the bill, in the bill of third party financing. Can the good representative explain what third party financing means? sn/rr 53

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It's a federal definition of the bill. It does include, credit cards and other types of loan products that could be offered by a third party entity. And then there's a federal statute that describes all of that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So, yes, what type of loan products and, why does the definition, include those specific types of loan products enumerated, and are there other types of loan products that were excluded? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So we wanted to be clear that, this legislation applies to, certain credit cards, open end credit cards, and third party lines of credits and loan offered, that are defined in this federal statute. So we wanted to be explicit in the legislation to ensure there are no loopholes. We were told by the financial industry, you have these medical credit card products. There's some big players out there that everybody knows. You see the advertising. But there are some third party lines of credits loans offered that act in the same way as medical credit cards, and from our research, have even higher interest. And perhaps, in my opinion, even more predatory terms. So we wanted to make sure that those were included as well. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So why were then types of products excluded from the definition of third party financing? For instance, closed end financing. Why would that be excluded? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So because this product--, we wanted this bill, we wanted to be very explicit that this is trying to regulate, business practices when offering third party financial products. Hospitals, doctors, dentists, veterinarian offices offer their own lines of credit, their own payment plans, oftentimes at zero or low interest. We wanted to make sure, that those weren't included in what a provider's office can solicit and help people sign up for, because those products are often a lot better for consumers. sn/rr 56 And, frankly, it would be good if they offered more of those products that they control, individually. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The good representative mentioned interest, zero interest. Is there a reason that, that distinction was made in this bill between those types of products? And again, may have been excluded? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So I was just using an example and stating what those interest rates may be. That is not, laid out here in the bill. What we're trying to say is, providers are only sn/rr 57 prohibited from soliciting in those treatment rooms, third party financial products. The products that they provide themselves, the lines of credits and loans that the provider's offices offer to their patient consumers, there's no prohibition on how they solicit that, in this legislation because it's not third party. So we're trying to make a distinction. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So again, I guess my question is what is the distinction? Why a distinction? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

sn/rr 58 Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure how to answer that, any differently. I'll try one more time. There are third party financial products, and then there are loans or lines of credit that the provider themselves offers. A payment plan from your provider, that is offered by the provider. There's a third party product. So I hope that clarifies it. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the answer. It seems to me that there is a distinction being made, about the type of product being offered, and a substantive determination about the type of financing that should be offered, which I think is important, distinction for this bill, and I think is in effect regulating the type of credit that is extended in this bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker, another question. On line 50 of this bill, it basically gets to the heart of what we're talking sn/rr 59 about here, refers to advertise, market, solicit, promote, or offer any third party financing to a consumer. Through you, Mr. Speaker, question to the proponent, does he believe, regulating the offer of a third party financing to consumer is not, regulating the use of this credit card? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, we are regulating the business practices by health care providers and how they market offer these products, not the third party financial products themselves. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

sn/rr 60 Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the answer. I guess, I disagree with the answer to that question, that the offering of extension of credit itself, is important to the regulating, is implicitly regulating the financial product. Through you, Mr. Speaker, there are also references starting on line 83, to the types of charges that can be made on the financing account. Through you, Mr. Speaker, question of the proponent, is that regulating the use of the credit card? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to clarify too. There's no prohibition on the business practice from accepting these third party, financing products. They can accept anything that the consumer wants to do, within state and federal law. This is a prohibition, and offering third party financial products where patients are getting treatment, in the treatment sn/rr 61 rooms, in the operating rooms, when they are under anesthesia or sedation. We're trying to protect patients here. We're regulating business practices. Regarding, the Good Chair of Banking's additional question, is this ancillary third party receipt? What Section is this? Through you, Mr. Speaker. I found the lines that the chair of banking was asking about. This is regarding with these high interest credit cards, that have deferred interest to them. It's not fair for providers under their business practices to charge a card before a service has been provided. If you were charged a card 30 days before a service is provided, that clock starts ticking on how long you have a 0% interest. So the bill is stating that, that practice, who we're regulating, cannot charge that medical credit card or third party financing product before costs are incurred by that provider. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Moving on, I noticed there is a disclosure form in the bill, starting on line 102. Through you, Mr. Speaker, question of the proponent. Does the imposition of the requirements with respect to disclosure, constitute regulating the financial product itself? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this disclosure needs to be provided by the health care provider's office when having conversations, with their consumers. So, it is just part of protecting consumers as part of, what we do here in general law. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Moving on a question, on line 142, there's a reference to a refund. Question of the proponent, does the requirement of a refund regulate the use of the financial product itself? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, just like a lot of legislation we do here in the consumer, General Law Committee, we just passed a bill recently on, scalping of tickets and ensuring people have transparency, when they're purchasing tickets on third party platforms. Same type of thing that we're doing here. We're protecting consumers that when they purchase products from these providers, that they have the ability to return them within 30 days. So return policy under consumer protection. Through you, Mr. Speaker. sn/rr 64

Through you, Mr. Speaker. One last question. I've heard a lot of references today to the interest charged on some of these products and to the repayment plans, with respect to some of these products. Through you, Mr. Speaker, was that relevant to this bill, and to the intent of this legislation? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, there have been thousands of complaints across the nation on the national consumer financial bureau, by consumer reports, different entities that, people can make complaints to patient consumers, within their provider's offices when they were offered, different products to sign up for the pay for their services. sn/rr 65 And, these complaints we took very seriously. Many of them that were right here in Connecticut, I provided the Good Chair of Banking with a list of the complaints from Connecticut residents. One of them who testified in the General Law Committee who was under anesthesia when solicited and signed up for this product. So we took everything into account, working together with the industry, with providers, across the aisle right when putting this bill together to help our Connecticut residents. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the representative for his answers to the question today. And, I couldn't agree more, with much of what the representative has said today. I couldn't agree more, with the intent of this legislation. Particularly, the anesthesia, which is specific to this type of product, which is offered in medical offices. sn/rr 66 I think that is a very important provision, and one that I fully support. But where I do take exception with this legislation, is with the suggestion or in fact the assertion that it does not regulate the financial product. Indeed, that is much of what this bill does. And for that reason, I believe it should have come to the Banking Committee so we could have collaborated on this piece of legislation. So, while I again agree with the intent of this bill, I have some issues with the language itself, with the definitions, questions about the provisions regarding ancillary products, what can and can't be charged, when a refund, can and can't be offered and the conditions of that. These regulate the use of the financial product itself. So, it is not perfect. Again, I agree with the intent of this bill, but because it is not perfect, and because I believe it could use improvement, I can't support it today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise just to ask a couple questions to the proponent of the bill if I may, Sir.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, this financial tool would it be okay to, categorize it as a credit card? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

sn/rr 68 Through you, Mr. Speaker, the third party of financing products could be a credit card. Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, another question. Would it also be similar to, could it serve in a way similar to an HSA card? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, an HSA card, I believe, is a card that you would sign up, through your employer. I'm not sure that is a card that you would be solicited from a provider. sn/rr 69 But regardless, this bill does not prohibit someone from using any product they want to use to pay for their services. They can use anything. No prohibitions on that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, so if I'm understanding this correctly, an HSA card, for example, is something you actually put money into, and it has, I think, three different types of tax benefits. Money going in doesn't get taxed. Money coming out doesn't get taxed, because it's used for qualified medical expenses. So with this, is this product a credit product or is it one in which the owner of this product puts money into? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yeah. Through you, Mr. Speaker, there's no prohibition for the consumer. They can use any product they want, including the HSA. No prohibition. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that. I guess, let me just try to rephrase the question. This isn't, an account that I could put money into, correct? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. No. sn/rr 71

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So it functions more as a line of credit, or a credit card. Is the limit on this based on an individual's credit? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, just want to be clear. There are no limits, no restrictions, no prohibitions on the consumer themself. The consumer has free rein to use anything they want. We're talking about being solicited for these third party financial products in areas where patients are getting care, when they're getting care. sn/rr 72 So if this particular product that you're saying is a third party financial product, the provider can have all the conversations they want about that product in the waiting room, in the financing room, in the hallway, just not when treatment's taking place. But on the consumer, there's no restrictions in this bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Okay. I think it's starting to get a little clearer. So the bill reads, an act concerning credit cards and health and veterinary care services. So am I to understand that this bill is allowing for a particular type of credit card or credit product to be issued? Or is this adjusting the law so that expenses made by an individual that qualify under this new law have some sort of special treatment? Through you, Mr. Speaker. sn/rr 73

I want to ensure, the good representative that, there's no special treatment on what a consumer can use to pay for their services in this legislation. As far as the restrictions on providers from soliciting, in the treatment rooms, that covers all third party financing products. So it really isn't picking one product over another. It's anything that's third party, that the provider can't solicit when they're providing treatment or in a treatment room. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

sn/rr 74 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Okay. So from my understanding, and I could be wrong, I was under the assumption that this allows, this basically creates a new product or service that could be offered to individuals to finance medical care, in the form of credit that can be used for that financing. Am I understanding that incorrectly? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. The bill does not create any new products, for individuals to use to pay for their services. Through you.

sn/rr 75 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Okay. So then through you, does it provide any additional protections, to patients, consumers, the user of this service, I guess, that is not otherwise provided in current law? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. That's the legislation's full intent to provide added protections to our consumers, transparency and disclosure. Through you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, through you. The good representative listed a couple things that it did. Can you go into some specifics? sn/rr 76 What makes this unique compared to what does or does not exist right now? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think for most providers and in most health care institutions, 99% of this is probably happening anyway. We're really trying to protect consumers from bad actors, but it protects them from that prohibition when they're receiving treatment or when they're in treatment rooms, from patients being solicited products. It provides a disclosure form so that an individual understands they may be signing up for a very high interest product that could lead to medical debt. It ensures when they're buying ancillary products, there's an itemized receipt so they have transparency. It allows someone to return a product that's been unopened or untampered with within 30 days. sn/rr 77 Those type of consumer protections that I think are common sense that we expect as patients, we expect as consumers, our constituents expect, and most providers are doing it, but there are some bad actors, unfortunately, out there, and we've heard about them here in Connecticut. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So last question, because I think I understand, what it is for the most part now. So essentially, this would just add further guidelines or regulations that would need to be followed by any and all actors in the medical financing space. Is that a correct characterization of what this bill hopes to accomplish? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. And I'm also, very happy to say that the medical credit card industry and providers associations came together to work on this bill, on what they think makes most sense for how these products are offered and solicited to protect Connecticut residents. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I know I said that was my last question. I promise this is my last question. Through you, as it stands right now, credit card debt or medical debt, is that treated any differently, than other sort of consumer debt? For example, if you have a credit card and you use it to buy a flat screen TV, and you've maxed out your credit card, and then you choose not to pay it, it's not really the case that, that credit card company, whether it's Discover, Bank of America, whatever, the big names, they're probably not going to come to sn/rr 79 your house to take your TV because you didn't pay your credit card debt. But they will, file a lawsuit against you, and there will be a judgment against you, and it'll ruin your credit. With medical debt, obviously, it's different, but the same in the sense that there's really no recourse other than, going to court and ruining the individual's credit. With the passage of this bill, would it change the way in which creditors have the ability to go after a customer, patient, consumer, that does not make their payments in a timely manner? And would it offer any protection against any sort of contracts or arrangements where all of the debt must be paid upfront in the event that just one payment is missed? I know that there was a lot there, and I apologize. I could clarify any points that may have been lost in translation there. But through you, Mr. Speaker, could the good proponent speak on that if possible?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, there's nothing in this bill that mitigates a third party financing company from suing Connecticut residents if a medical debt is not paid. If that's something that the good representative wants to work together bipartisanly, next year, I'd be more than happy to try to see how we can do that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Good stuff. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

sn/rr 81 Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

This has been an interesting discussion. To the proponent of the bill, if we're dealing with a Connecticut chartered bank, a Connecticut chartered credit union, and they're originating that credit card, whose would have jurisdiction over that card and the institution that would be issuing that? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in the bill that regulates the actual financial products, the medical credit cards themselves, whether it's state chartered or federally chartered. Through you. sn/rr 82

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to the proponent of the bill. So, then if a bad actor, for lack of a better term, that has a credit card company in the State of Connecticut, chartered in the State of Connecticut. At that point, there would be no safeguards. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Within this bill, there are no prohibitions, restrictions, penalties for third party financing companies themselves. But I'm sure there are state laws and federal laws in place that regulate them, in numerous other ways to protect consumers. Through you, Mr. Speaker. sn/rr 83

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, wouldn't that bad actor fall under some state law or the banking commissioner or some other organization like that, would they fall under the purview and the requirements and rules and regulations, etcetera? Would that be the case? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't deal with that. So this bill doesn't do anything, to hold the third party financial products themselves accountable in any way. This bill is regulating the business practices of health care providers to protect, consumers. So, it's a consumer protection bill not regulating financial products. Through you, Mr. Speaker. sn/rr 84

Well, through you, Mr. Speaker, thank you to the proponent for the answers to the questions. Lastly, it seems to me that there should be some level of protection to the consumer in the State of Connecticut. If it's chartered in the State of Connecticut and originated in the State of Connecticut, and my level of concern resides in that. And, through you, Mr. Speaker, is there any rules, regulations, caveats, etcetera, through that instrument? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

sn/rr 85 Through you, Mr. Speaker, as the good ranking member of the General Law Committee said earlier, he wished there was more included in this bill. Certainly, there's more we can do to protect our consumer, our patients, whether it's our general law statutes, our banking statutes, and others. And, we're happy to come back next year and try to work to do more. This was a compromise bill between industry, consumer advocacy groups. So this is, as far as we were able to get this year. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I thank the proponent of the bill for what he's offering here. I do have concerns over the fact that the instrument itself somehow could be misused if it's a Connecticut originated financing company, a Connecticut originated bank, a Connecticut originated credit union. sn/rr 86 And it could conceivably fall through the cracks. And that's something that needs to be addressed, I believe. And this has been a good discussion. And I'd like to thank the proponent and the speaker for the opportunity to ask a couple of questions here and get some answers and raise some of the red flags that we have on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I have been listening to the discussion and I appreciate the good chairman's, responses. I'm a little concerned that I think the bill was written incorrectly. That it does not, as it's written, it does not, represent the intent of the committee. And I'll tell you why. The good proponent indicated that there wasn't any restriction on what the veterinary office could do, except where it can be done. sn/rr 87 So I'm looking specifically at lines 50 through 73. And it appears that in line 50, it limits, says that, actually starting at 48, "no healthcare provider or veterinary care provider shall, one, advertise, market, solicit, promote, or offer any third party financing to a customer." Okay. The good proponent indicated that, that restriction was limited to outside of the treatment room. Which apparently is the intent of this bill. So in the waiting room, in the lobby, they can offer, they can hand them a brochure that says, here's the information on this company, on this credit card to save your animal. Great. But when you look at line 52 through 54, it says you can't do that. The limitation on the place is not until line 61. And then there's line 61 through 62, line 63 and 64, and line 65 through 75. So if the limitation was supposed to be only with regard to location and also with regard to whether the consumers under the influence and things like that, then the first two Sections, the first two subsections, (a) and (b), should be underneath those. sn/rr 88 And it should say something to the effect that while a consumer is in the treatment room or under the influence or, while the healthcare provider is providing treatment, in those instances, the healthcare provider can't provide the branding, can't provide the software, etcetera. Which sounded from my discussions with my colleagues and with the good proponent. That's the intent of the bill. However, the way it's written in LCO 4175, the healthcare provider can't provide the branding anywhere at any time, can't provide access to software or the Internet website or hyperlink anywhere, anytime. So I agree with the intent of the bill, but it's written wrong. And the way it is on the page, it would completely prohibit a healthcare provider from having even a little sticker that says, we accept this credit card. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

sn/rr 89 Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to clarify, the good representative's question, and I think, he'll feel much better after the response. So through you, Mr. Speaker, first, under that Section, it's very important to look at, I think, it's subparagraph (e). That is where we're putting the limitations on where these products can be offered and where they can't. So that's specifying explicitly in the language written out in the treatment rooms, in the operation rooms, in places where people receive care. So that, makes sure, that by not saying the waiting room, the hallway, the finance office, other places in the health care facility, in the barn, that these products can be offered. Alright. So that is to ensure we address that concern. Regarding, subparagraph (a) and (b), I want, the good representative to understand, Mr. Speaker, it's no prohibition on the advertising materials outside of those treatment rooms, operating rooms, as long as it's not co-branded. Meaning, you can't have the hospital's name and the financial product together on the poster. And this is because of literally sn/rr 90 thousands of complaints around the nation where people signed up for a product they didn't know was a third party product. We want consumers to have transparency so they know this is a product by X, Y, and Z company. This isn't a product by your doctor, or dentist, or veterinarian. So it's just separating the advertising. So it's not co-branded. And the good representative is right. When somebody is sedated, we don't believe that they should be offered a third party financial product anywhere. Wait till the sedation wears off. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. So looking at, see, I would agree with the proponents explanation if in line 64, it didn't use the word "or". If it used the word "and", perhaps that would fly. But the way it's written, you can't do any of these things. sn/rr 91 It's a list of things that you're not allowed to do. The last one of which is, provide information while the consumer is in an area of a facility or institution that is used to provide healthcare services. So it can't provide the branding. It can't provide website. It can't do it while a consumer is under the influence of anesthesia. Can't do it while the healthcare provider is providing service, or while the consumer is in the treatment area. So the way it's written, a veterinarian can't have a sign that says we accept MasterCard, we accept Visa, we accept American Express, and we accept credit care or care credit. I just can't read it any other way. Perhaps the good proponent can explain how the practices in (a) and (b) relate to (e)? Through you.

sn/rr 92 Through you, Mr. Speaker. The good representative is right. It does say "or" on, line 64, and that is because those other Sections are prohibited anywhere in the medical practice. Like I mentioned, we don't want someone being solicited under anesthesia or sedation anywhere in the medical practice. But, (a) and (b) are referring to co-branded advertising materials. There is no prohibition on the actual practice from having the third party financial companies advertising materials displayed all over their offices. They can have posters. They can put QR codes up. They can have all of that up. And I'll tell you why I'm so confident of that, because the third party financial companies and the veterinarians association helped write that language. They were okay with it because they did not want those prohibitions, to be placed on them. But they did believe it made sense to prohibit co-branding at any time to avoid that confusion. So you're right. And you know what? I've never seen this co-branding myself. I don't think it happens very often. It's just a couple of bad actors out there, and this will not prohibit what you're concerned about, according to the people we're sn/rr 93 working with, who are the ones that would be regulated in this. So through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I will take the good proponents word for it. And if (a) and (b) relate only to co-branding, so any place that is outside of the confines specified in Subsection (e), an office clerk or a veterinarian could talk to a pet owner and say, I understand you are unable to pay for the, saving of your pet. Here is a pamphlet for a credit card company that may be able to help you. And even if that pamphlet has the branding of the credit card company, and the internet hyperlink, and the website, and all that information on the pamphlet, so long as it is not a co-branded pamphlet with the veterinary office, then it's okay? Is that correct? Through you. sn/rr 94

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. And as the conversation we had earlier, there also has to be a disclosure form with that advertising information. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The good proponent has satisfied my concerns. I very much appreciate it.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I just want to thank the good chair, for working, with this side of the aisle and with the industry. I know this is not exactly what was the initial proposal, but, at least from our side, we greatly appreciate listening to the industry, listening to our concerns, and amending the initial legislation. So thank you. I plan on voting for this legislation based on that input, and I would, urge my colleagues to vote for it as well. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Speaker..

sn/rr 96 The house of representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

House Bill 5127 as Amended by House (a): Total Number Voting 147 Necessary for Passage 74 Those voting Yea 141 Those voting Nay 6 Those absent and not voting 4 sn/rr 97

Page 19, Calendar 249, Substitute for House Bill Number 5467, an act concerning the designation of a department of economic and community development employee for the purpose of providing concierge services to small businesses. Favorable report for joint standing committee on commerce?

Good afternoon to you, Mr. Speaker. And greetings from the Town of Greenwich to the great state of Waterbury. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. sn/rr 98

Mr. Speaker, the clerk has an Amendment, LCO 4416. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment, and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO Number 4416 designated House "A" and offered by Representative Meskers, Senator Hartley, Representative Aniskovich, Senator Martin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the amendment is nothing more than one word, which raises the concept that the allocation of resources will be within existing employees. So literally, it's a one word amendment, to the word, existing. That's my summarization, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would request a voice vote to adopt the amendment if that's within my purview. sn/rr 100

All those opposed, Nay.

sn/rr 101 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill, I want to thank my ranking members in both chambers and my colleague in the senate. The bill is a bill that came to us from CBIA, and I thought it was a well- intentioned and smart piece of legislation. Its basic premise is to provide concierge service to the small businesses of the state. As we all sit in the chamber and talk about the complicated nature of much of the legislation we pass and many of the bills that impact our agencies. This will provide a gateway to our small businesses to have a one stop shopping and concierge service to attend to the needs of small businesses so that the DECD, the Department of Economic Community Development will lend their support. It's an important step, to improve accessibility for growing businesses that are in need of that support, and those that may not fully be informed of the resources available to them. And I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you for the explanation, by the good chair of commerce for this piece of legislation. I just have a couple of quick questions for him. Through you.

First and foremost, what is the reasoning behind having a designated, individual, at DECD in order to provide these services? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, all of our agencies are taxed at some level in their delivery of services. We wanted to be able to sn/rr 103 appoint a person, as the point person or that the DECD would appoint and designate a person who would be responsible for attending to the needs of our small businesses. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much for the explanation. Again, through you, Mr. Speaker, just finally, is there a fiscal note on this legislation? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Originally, there was a fiscal note attached to the bill. I've been led with our LCA in conversations that the amendment, which, places it within existing employees, sn/rr 104 eliminates that fiscal note. And therefore, I can assure my ranking that, we are not at risk of a fiscal note at this point.

Thank you again for that explanation. Yes. I agree with this is a very good piece of legislation. In order to have a designated individual, a DECD, in order for small businesses, medium sized businesses to have a contact to help them navigate through the system, ask any questions. Sometimes it's very difficult for these small and medium sized businesses in order to navigate the system. So I feel that this legislation will help improve that, get the process moving, and help, our small businesses in our state move through the process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good to see you. And a question to the proponent of the bill as amended?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I always appreciate the work of the Commerce Committee. I was there a number of years ago. In this case here, though, I did read through the testimony. Unfortunately, there's not a lot. You know, supportive. And then, obviously, the Commissioner of DECD--. By the State of Connecticut, what is a small business? Through you, Mr. Speaker. What's a employee count? Through you, Mr. Speaker. sn/rr 106

If you'll give me one moment--. [background noise] Through you, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

Representative Ackert.

sn/rr 109 Will you remark further on this bill as amended?

If I might. [inaudible] I want to thank the good comments from my member. I would say that it's not explicit in the intent, but in developing and designating a small business concierge service. I would expect that you can come back to myself and the ranking and make sure that we get one of full report and work to develop an approach that promulgates the opportunity space, whether it be in the lending programs of small business, etcetera. It's not in the intent. It's not explicit, but I would commit to you as the chair of commerce from the house to make sure that sn/rr 110 we deliver on that information within the next session. But thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have a couple questions for the proponent of the bill, and I just want to start with a statement is that as a small business owner myself, probably since 1993, it's laudable the intent of this legislation and of the Commerce Committee, trying to add more resources for a small business, trying to get things, in order, trying to navigate this complicated system that we have. I do have a question for the proponent on the bill, and I recognize that the new section, offers up an existing employee to act as a concierge, because it does say employee, not the whole system. But on line 33, 32 through 34, it said that the requirement is that the DECD must provide a single point of contact for small sn/rr 111 businesses seeking financial and technical assistance from state and quasi-public. So how does that single point of contact differ from a concierge, in this bill? Through you.

One deals with the landing page on the website, which I think, answers the question. From my understanding, there's a landing page on the website to apply, and they will identify the employee. So I think, it breaks it up in our intent.

Okay. So, this new person, this new role, will be there to provide assistance with navigating the website. Is that what I heard? There's a little noise over here. So--. sn/rr 112

No. My understanding is the website will provide them with a landing site, and the DECD will provide us with the person who was responsible for those inquiries.

Thank you. I have no further questions other than just a few statements. And I think it's again, laudable that the Commerce Committee took this on. I don't know where the original proponent of the bill or where the request came from. I think it's kind of an indictment on our system that we need to have somebody made available to navigate a landing page, and that DECD hasn't taken this on, on themselves. sn/rr 113 Recognized feedback maybe from people who are struggling, with navigating the system because it is a complicated system. There are any number of different people you need to call. A lot of times now with the work from home situation, you can't get people on the phone. So it is, I agree it's really frustrating as a small business owner trying to, never mind somebody that's a small business that's operating and maybe has to add a new feature. Try to imagine the startup business, starting from scratch, trying to navigate all the things that one has to do to comply with the regulations put forth from--, a lot of them come out of this room. So, laudable. Appreciate, the efforts taken upon by this committee. Wish it weren't so complicated that this were needed, and I also wish that DECD were more proactive that we didn't need legislation to direct them to take this on through existing funding and to provide those services to the small businesses, that they should be. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I do agree with the representative from the 55th. You know, they honestly, we had better policies in our state. I don't think we would need all this, but I think it is laudable. I'm celebrating my 35th anniversary for my business this month, April 1991, I opened up. And, there's a lot of, work that goes into running a business, and employing people, and dealing with the regulations and policies of our state, for better or for worse. But I do have a question through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good chair of commerce. How is DECD or the state going to market? There no marketing in here? Are businesses going to know where to call, who to call, and what number to call? Through, Mr. Speaker.

It's a laudable piece of legislation, but how is DECD going to market this to small businesses for the concierge services? I think those are important, and there's many businesses that have them, in the leisure business and my business, other business, but how is the state going to market this aspect of this policy? Through you.

Mr. Speaker, I think at the margin, this goes beyond the letter of the bill. But I could assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the proponent of the bill, who came to us was CBIA. So at that level, we will have an external force in CBIA promoting the bill if it's obviously passed by the senate, adopted by the governor. And I expect it will be promoted heartily by our private sector. Through you, Mr. Speaker. sn/rr 116

Thank you for the answer. I know I get filings and messages from the Secretary of State's Office. I would think it would make sense, honestly, simplicity. So with simplistic email from the Secretary of State's Office and Department of Labor's Office to every business that this service is going to be offered, and people could take advantage of it, if they need it. I think that's a simplistic way to do it. Honestly, I don't think we really need legislation for this. I think we can promote it as a state. Obviously, I'm going to support it, but it's something as simple as this. I personally don't think we need legislation. We get filing, I get emails all the time from the state for different things, and this could have been in one of the email lists. So I'm going to support it, but I think it sounds good. sn/rr 117 How we're going to implement it, I'm not sure, but the simplistic way to implement it is through an email and conversation between the Secretary of State's Office and the Department of Labor and the business community, CBIA. But really it's a communication. It's all. So, thank you.

The house of representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. [background noise]

House Bill 5467 as Amended by House "A": Total Number Voting 147 Necessary for Passage 74 Those voting Yea 143 Those voting Nay 4 Those absent and not voting 4

On page 13, Calendar 201, Substitute House Bill Number 5377. An act concerning return of health care provider payments and site of service billing requirements. Favorable report of insurance. sn/rr 119

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill addresses return of provider payments and also known as claw backs. We have also addressed the electronic appeals process. I would ask the clerk, I do have an amendment, LCO 4256. Please call the amendment, and I'd be, granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A". LCO Number 4256, offered by Representative Wood, Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've made a few changes to this bill. First, we have shortened the period for a claw back from 15 months down to 12 months. We have also changed the appeal process from a 12 day to a 30. We've removed section 2 regarding NPI language. And the rest of the amendment, which looks long, it really just includes all of the providers that we regulate here in the General sn/rr 121 Assembly, and made sure that it applies to all of them. Through you. Oh, sorry. And I urge passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection to the amendment and prefer to save my comments for the bill once the amendment is passed.

sn/rr 122 Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I will just add that this is a bill that we've seen many times here in the House. We've actually passed this bill unanimously in this Chamber. We started working on this bill during COVID when mental health providers were coming to us saying that somewhere far down the road, sometimes 15 months, 16 months, 18 months later, they would receive a claw back from an insurance carrier. And they were really focused on providing mental health services during a time that was very stressful in the state, and we want to help them stay focused on providing those services, and less focus on administrative burden. And that's what this bill does. Through you. sn/rr 123

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And just a few questions for clarification for the chair of the committee, if I may.

Let me begin by reminding the Chamber. And if you could remind the Chamber, what types of plans do our bills cover? What types of insurance plans? Through you.

sn/rr 124 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Connecticut General Assembly, we regulate fully insured plans only. So those are plans on the Affordable Care Act. Through you.

And what percentage of the population in Connecticut does that cover? Through you.

I would say about 20%. Through you.

And so these plans do not cover state employees. Is that correct? Through you.

That is correct. Through you.

Thank you. And does this cover Medicare? Through you.

It does not. Through you.

Thank you for that. So I'm looking at the original bill. And just to clarify, what is the number or is there a number that's currently in statute as far as the claw back is concerned? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was 18 months. We are reducing that here today with a 12-month claw back period. Through you. sn/rr 127

Thank you. And it's my understanding that, initially, when this bill was put forward, the number was 15 months. And as the good chair said that, now through various negotiations, we have agreed on 12 months. If the good chair would please give some examples, or if you could walk through an example of when this happens and what exactly, why this claw back provision. why we are changing it? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Usually, when there is an error, either on the side of the provider submitting a reimbursement request or a carrier interpreting that request, there is a disagreement in what is owed. We feel that the 18 months is far sn/rr 128 too long for providers to be victim to a claw back. We are asking the carriers, as well as the providers to work within a 12-month time frame. In addition, we have put an electronic appeals process in place, which currently, we were hearing in testimony that providers were calling a 1800 number and sitting on hold for hours at a time. So not only have we reduced the claw back period, but we've added an electronic appeals process, which will help streamline this whole communication of claw backs between providers and carriers. Through you.

Thank you. And so just to clarify, the insurance company pays your provider doctor. Then something happens, an event, which we'll get to in a second. Then the practice is that, let's say, in the doctor's account, money will be taken out of that account due to some type of an event. Let's say, for example, it's determined by sn/rr 129 the company that the individual is no longer insured. Would that be an example? Through you.

That is an example. Through you.

And is any notice given to doctors when this removal of funds from their account occurs? Through you.

There is a notice. Through you.

And how much time is given between the notice and when the money is actually withdrawn from the account? Through you.

30 days. Through you.

Thank you for that answer. And under this bill, are there exceptions to that time limit of 12 months? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If their provider goes through the appeal process and still is denied, the provider can continue to submit the appeal. Through you.

Okay. So, if the good chair could give maybe a couple -- if she knows any other examples besides, let's say, non-coverage. Are sn/rr 132 there any other examples when a claw back would occur? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A common thing that we heard in testimony was providers submitting a reimbursement form twice or reimbursement forms that weren't fully filled out. So I think any sort of interpretation of the forms that is not accurate of the service performed would potentially be open to a claw back. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'm sure many individuals in this Chamber have probably gotten calls from their constituents. I know sn/rr 133 I got one maybe a few months ago. And you'll get a call frantic that the individual had a service performed, insurance paid, everybody moves on, and then let's say a while later, sometimes longer than expected, the individual gets a bill in the mail from the doctor. And the doctor informs the patient that all of a sudden the money was taken back from the insurance company, that there was no coverage, there was a mistake. I think it varies depending on the situation, whether the mistake occurred, of course, from the individual, from the provider, or from the insurance company. Either way, of course, to get a bill a year later, much later than from when the service occurred for an individual, it's very upsetting. And with recent negotiations, I know a lot of individuals probably received in the mail a letter saying, if you come to this hospital, I won't mention a certain one, that we no longer will be taking this insurance. And so until we reach an agreement on prices, that there will not be coverage as of this date. That's one example where an individual could be put in that situation, and put in that situation unnecessarily. sn/rr 134 And it's very upsetting to many individuals who are going through necessary treatment and get very little notice as to when they will no longer be able to go to that provider, and even, of course, after if they find out that, well, no, coverage didn't exist at that time, thinking that they were covered. So, overall, I know this bill was negotiated. And if the good chair could tell the Chamber what parties were part of this negotiation. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have been negotiating on this bill, as I said, for at least four years. It started during COVID. We had both sides of the aisle, Senate and House. We had carriers, large health systems, small health systems, behavioral health providers, and others at the table. I will note that through the negotiation with everyone, we are doing this bill with zero fiscal note, which I think we're sn/rr 135 really proud to say that we're not putting any pressure on the health system. In fact, what we're doing is we're streamlining a process and telling both provider and carrier to be more efficient and more transparent when working with each other, which will benefit the patient at the end of the day. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And if the good chair could just go over one more time the parts of this bill relating to the electronic notice and how that relates to the claw back and any other provision. Through you.

sn/rr 136 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Currently, some of the appeals process are taking place with a fax machine and with a phone number. We are putting in this bill that the appeals process has to take place electronically. Why? Because providers are sometimes sole proprietors. They don't have an HR department, they don't have an administrative office. And so they're doing a lot of this work themselves. So if they can just fill out a form through their electronic portal in ways that they're currently interacting with the insurance carriers, it moves this along much faster and, again, will benefit the patient in the end. Through you.

I thank the good chair for her answer. I know years and years ago when the chair was Representative Scanlon, now Commissioner Scanlon, it was something that we did discuss at that time. I remember seeing facts. And every time I see the word facts, it sn/rr 137 drives me crazy. I tell people, I don't have a fax machine. I also don't have a pigeon that I put little notes on and send out the window. I don't have a goat that I send out the door. We just don't use fax machines like we used to anymore. Hopefully, the court system will also update that a little as well, and they do somewhat, I know, for many individuals. But faxes are not, I'll say, the preferred and most common use of communication nowadays, as we all know. So to have them as the only means of providing this service, an appeal, has been frustrating for a long time. So I do urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I do want to thank the good chair for her hard work and cooperation on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

sn/rr 138 The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber.

sn/rr 139 H.B. 5377 as amended by House "A": Total Number of Voting 148 Necessary for Passage 75 Those Voting Yea 148 Those voting Nay 0 Absent and not voting 3

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to cast my vote in the affirmative, please.

Page 54, Calendar 198, substitute for H.B. No. 5374, AN ACT CONCERNING HEALTH COVERAGE MANDATES FOR CERTAIN HEALTH CONDITIONS. Favorable Report of Insurance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

sn/rr 141 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am here to announce 5374, AN ACT CONCERNING HEALTH COVERAGE MANDATES FOR CERTAIN HEALTH CONDITIONS. We have four items on this agenda. First is to cover pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections, also known as PANDAS, and Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome, also known as PANS. We are also covering prosthetic devices used for athletic purposes. We are also providing coverage for scalp cooling system used in connection with chemotherapy. And lastly, we are modernizing the definition of infertility to work within the modern family code that many of our ERISA and self-funded plans are already doing, including our state employee system, and I urge passage. Through you.

sn/rr 142 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I'd like to go through this bill. There's a few different sections that I know have been put into one bill. And every year, in the Insurance Committee, we get a long list of mandates. And we've had different ones over the years. Everything from, let's say, a gene therapy, various ones that have to do with, well, we have now, prosthetics specific diseases, I'll say. And I think it's probably the most common thing that we get in our committee as far as requests. The Insurance Committee, over the years, has also put in other bills, and I'm mentioning this because it relates. We have put in a bill that is mandate review, and it existed before. Okay? It was a mandate review where it would go over and tell us what the costs of every mandate was. And I have a notebook, actually a binder, that has what essentially is a study of these mandates and how much they cost on each insurance plan. So, in the prior bill, the good representative mentioned how the types of plans that we, as a legislature, are allowed to regulate. It covers individual plans on the exchange. It does not cover Medicare. It does not cover also state employees. So often, we find that individuals or heads of departments will talk about the coverage that's now provided to state sn/rr 143 employees, but it doesn't necessarily cover other parts of the population. Over the years, I believe as a result of one mandate after another after another, we just might be one of the top mandate-heavy, I'd say, states in the entire country. And I'll ask the chair, through you, Mr. Speaker, if she knows ranking in other states, do we have more mandates than other states or less? And where we fall in that scale. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're usually on the higher end of states that cover health benefit mandates. Through you.

sn/rr 144 Thank you for that answer. And I know every session, we also struggle and deal with the cost of care. Not only the cost of insurance, but more so, as we've learned over the years, the cost of care and what contributes to that. And I do always thank my chair for being very diligent and us meeting all year round with different committees.

Thank you. It has been very informative, and we definitely have spent a lot of time with different parties, with the hospitals, providers, with individuals as well, and getting at what's causing the increase in our cost of care. And I have to say, again, it's been very informative. I am very appreciative of all the knowledge that we have gained over the years. We have found individuals come in. I know any time somebody calls, let's say, a constituent, we always ask the first question sn/rr 145 is, well, what plan are you covered by? Because it is difficult to explain and for people to understand that we only cover certain plans in the state. And there's other ones, again, like Medicare and the state employees that we don't cover. So, we cannot regulate that. But back to the cost. Again, my binder is it's very interesting because the list is many pages long. And some of them only have a few cents. Right? $0.03 a plan, per plan. $0.04, maybe $1. So the numbers do always look very small. It's just that list is about now 10 or 20 pages long. And so all of that added up has increased over time to be a pretty large number, in addition to other, let's say, fees that are added on top of our premiums through the insurance department for other things that we have to fund. Vaccines being one of them. I know when it comes to the mandates, so the initial plan that we had, or statute, had UConn doing the study. It was around every 10 years. We had to approve as a committee, and we've been trying to change that. I know UConn no longer has the department for us to do that, or the staff. So we put in to have an outside company be able to do it. sn/rr 146 And I do remember that the cost was very high, I believe, to do that. And if the good chair could remind the Chamber, what is the status of that mandate transparency bill, if it was passed in past years, if it's been changed, and if she could give us an update. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We were not able to get it passed in previous years, but the good ranking member and I, along with our committee, have requested a mandate review that is currently being done by our Connecticut Insurance Department, which should be presented to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee within the next few months. Through you.

Thank you for that answer. And of course, that's unfortunate because I think it's important to know exactly what we're voting on, how much it's going to cost. Now, here in the Capitol, we do get an estimate of how much it will cost a state employee plan, and that's usually due to increased usage, increased awareness, and as a result of some of the bills that we pass. So, if I may, does the good chair know the cost that has been given to us for state employee plans due to increased usage? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is zero cost to the state employee plan. The state employee plan is a self-funded plan, one that we do not regulate. They have already adopted the coverage of these certain conditions, so therefore, there is no additional cost. Through you. sn/rr 148

Thank you for that. And would that be for, let's say, all three sections? Well, let me ask specifically whether the athletic prosthetic, if that is already being used by the state employee plan and covered by the state employee plan. Through you.

Yes. Through you.

sn/rr 149 And is the scalp cooling therapy being used currently and covered in the state employee plan? Through you.

Yes. Through you.

And as far as the fertility portion of this bill, is that covered under the state employee plan? Through you.

Yes, it is. Through you.

Thank you. That is good to know. Again, it's something I mentioned earlier that quite often the state employee plan already covers a lot of what we pass in here, and so that's usually not an issue. If we can go to section 1, lines 92 through a 100, this section, the pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated. Is this otherwise known as PANS? Through you.

Yes. Through you. sn/rr 151

And what exactly is this disease? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is an autoimmune disease that affects children. And through the testimony, we heard some very powerful stories on the importance of treating as early as possible. And in often, many cases, a onetime treatment for this was game changing for the families. We heard stories of parents losing their homes to pay for this, and we are hopeful that being able to cover this for the small population that we regulate, we would prevent some of the financial difficulties that the families have shared with us. Through you. sn/rr 152

And on average, how many children are affected with this disease in Connecticut annually? Through you.

Thank you. I don't have the number for children that are affected annually. I believe that the state employee plan did have a number in here for who they have covered. They had 220 claims in the year 2025. Through you.

And does just treatment for this, is it -- well, if maybe you can go through what these symptoms are and what happens to the children who have this disease. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It affects children differently, but the treatment does include a treatment called IVIG that has been very effective in having children turn the corner on either being able to eat, talk, and sleep again. And that is exactly what we're trying to address in the coverage of this bill. Through you.

sn/rr 154 And if the good chair could explain exactly what that treatment consists of exactly, if she is aware? Through you.

An injection. Through you.

And is there any knowledge of the cost of that injection? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is, again, some knowledge of the cost based on the state employee plan. The treatment can cost up to $85,000 per patient. Through you.

And would that treatment be $85,000 per injection or per, let's say, month, or year? Through you.

That would be in the totality of the treatment for one individual. Through you. sn/rr 156

Thank you for that answer. Now, is the chair aware? I know there are some medications that come, let's say, this, as we were informed, is an injection. There are some that come in, let's say, to a pack. Does this come as a single injection, or is it a two- fold pack of injections? I'll start with that question. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The treatment would be unique for each individual. Through you.

And is this something that a parent can administer, or is this done usually in the doctor's office? Through you.

I'm not aware. Through you.

And as an autoimmune disease, what exactly happens to a child who does not have this type of medication? Through you. sn/rr 158

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We heard that the child's symptoms are prolonged for a very long time in their adolescence, and not until they mature, and their hormones change do they find any relief if they do not seek treatment. Through you.

Thank you. And I believe, if people are not aware, that in all of our bills, there will be a section of coverage and then what looks like almost a duplicate section that seems to say the same thing. If the good chair could clarify for the members of the Chamber why that is done in almost all of our insurance bills. Through you. sn/rr 159

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have a section on individual plans, and then we have group plans. So, it almost looks like it's saying the same thing twice, but we have to address both types of plans that we regulate. Through you.

Thank you for that explanation. I think that is important, because if you are not used to the language in this bill and bills like it, you would think maybe there was a mistake and why are we saying it twice. But as the good chair mentioned that, yes, we do individual plans and then group plans, and so in that case, we have to do separate language for each in order for it to be correctly and properly done. sn/rr 160 Moving on to, well, section 3 would be the group. Section 2, the individual. Moving on to section 4, the scalp cooling system. If the good chair could explain exactly what is a scalp cooling system. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes when people are going through chemotherapy treatment, the result is hair loss. The scalp cooling system will sit on a person's head during the treatment, and it will prevent the hair loss. And that's what that does. Through you.

sn/rr 161 Thank you for that answer. So, the effect of it being on the head, then what does it -- I know it says that, of course, obviously, in the name it cools, but it doesn't have any other benefits and effects for the treatment. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's a great question because what I heard through the testimony from people that were losing their hair was that not only does it show others that they're sick, but it is something that affects their mental health to have to deal with the hair loss. Sometimes the hair never comes back, sometimes it grows back very thin. And the scalp cooling system allows people to go through chemo and feel more like themselves, and then recover with the prevention of that hair loss quicker. And this is commonly used. Lots of insurance is actually covering this in the self-funded space. And the estimated cost that the state employee plan gave us was about sn/rr 162 $5,400 per treatment for one time during chemo, for the entire length of the chemo treatment. And the benefits were very much encouraged from those that were able to keep their hair. Through you.

Thank you. And so that was $5,400, you said, for the treatment for an individual. Would an individual usually use more than one treatment throughout the time period that they want to utilize the scalp cooling system? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We really heard from individuals that were going through something like breast cancer and receiving sn/rr 163 chemotherapy. And obviously, the goal is to go through that only one time. But during that one time treatment, the total cost would be $5,400, but it doesn't mean that cancer couldn't come back. They would be able to use that system still. It is an actual implement that goes on the head. So that is what you're paying for. Through you.

I want to thank the good chair for that answer. And I was getting at I know it was for comfort, but also as the good chair mentioned, prevention and reducing of hair loss during chemotherapy. And again, good to know that should they need it later on in further treatment down the road, that again, that would be a new series and that this would cover a second round down the road. And so, again, we do have the two separate sections. Section 4 covers individual policies, and then section 5 would be the group sn/rr 164 plans. And again, these are in the exchange, is that correct? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, that is correct. Through you.

Thank you. And in each, let's say, for example, section 5, it does refer to each group health insurance policy providing coverage of the type specified in 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 13 of 38a-469. If the good chair could tell me in summary what exactly those sections refer to.

Those are just subdivisions in the statute. I'm happy to pull up the statute. I would just need a moment to do so.

I was looking for it earlier, 38a-469. I had pulled it. So, there is basic hospital expense coverage, which is one. There's basic medical surgical expense coverage, which is 2. 3 is hospital confinement indemnity coverage. That's not included. 4 is major medical expense coverage. 5, disability income protection, not accident only, not part of this. Again, because, at least part of that not health insurance. Long-term care coverage, not part of this. 8, specified accident coverage. 9, Medicare supplement coverage. 10, limited benefit health coverage. 11 is hospital or sn/rr 166 medical service plan contract, which is part of this uncovered. 12, hospital and medical coverage provided to subscribers of a health care center. And then the last one, 13, is a specified disease coverage. But it goes on, but I won't read those travel, health, and some other ancillary health coverage. Moving on to section 6. Section 6 is now prosthetic. If the good chair could go over what the difference is between existing law -- well, let me ask, does existing law cover regular, let's say, prosthetic device usage for an individual? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, it does. And what we did here was directly written into the statute. It says prosthetic device does not include a device that is designed for athletic purposes. We just bracketed that, which means it's deleted. What we heard in testimony, we happen to hear a lot from children who had prosthetic sn/rr 167 devices and were able to attend school and participate in the instruction side of school, but then had to sit on the sidelines during gym class or sports or swimming. And what this change would allow is that those children who would have those prosthetic devices covered for instruction and walking, would now be able to have additional prosthetic devices for play and other activities. Through you.

Thank you for that answer. In existing language, it also talks about a device that contains a microprocessor if it is included. If the good chair could explain what a microprocessor is for the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I actually had the ability to tour a facility that makes the prosthetic devices. And every prosthetic device is completely unique for the individual, and some may require some computer chips dependent on the severity of the injury, and others may not. So, they're very customized for each person. And they happen to be making them in my town, Rocky Hill, Connecticut. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that answer. The public testimony for this mandate was very compelling. We did actually also have a separate meeting with a few individuals who each of them utilized a prosthetic. And their stories were very compelling, just like the good chair just mentioned, a child who has to sit out in gym class because the prosthetic device that she sn/rr 169 has is not used for running. That it's really only for walking and your day-to-day use. The individuals that we spoke with, because again, this is for athletic purposes, were athletic. They like to ride their bike. They like to hike and do a lot of activities. And we're not able to get a prosthetic that really would fit their lifestyle. Interestingly enough, we didn't have an individual who came to us with this, but there are various jobs that require, right, probably a device that would be more on the athletic side, as opposed to a daily use, if that job requires running, biking, and just general more strenuous activity. And I guess if it's in the field of athletic, it can be excluded for that reason. And I know we discussed with them also having more than one. Right? Something happens to the one that you have. Well, what do you do then? Right? It was very impactful to talk to them. And the fact that, yes, if something happens to their device, then they have to go without till it's fixed, and that could take a few days. Of note, I'll have to say I have to say that, actually, a good family friend of mine makes these devices. He is very creative and has a business where he designs things. And so this is and was sn/rr 170 a natural field of employment that he went into. And he gets to make an impact, a positive impact on people's lives. And just with the way he has to sculpt different things that he does for, like, these craft shows type thing, I can see just the detail that he has, and the ability he has. So I know those individuals are taken care of. He also recently went to Africa for about a few weeks to provide prosthetics for individuals over in Africa, and absolutely loved the experience. So, I'm not sure if he works at the one located in your town, but I have to say the stories he has, and just the overall pleasure he has with his job, and how happy he likes making individuals and changing their lives, it's nice to see somebody really appreciate their craft. So, again, back to the individuals who came before us. I remember the woman who was riding her bike, and of course, with a traditional limb that she had, that was very difficult. And she also went through how she lost her limb and the impact it's had on her life. She started as an athletic individual and didn't want to then just become somebody who sat in her apartment all the time. She wanted to stay active. sn/rr 171 And that was important for her, not only physically, but mentally. And this bill, of course, would make a huge impact on that. If the good chair, does she have any knowledge of maybe a couple examples of the cost of a prosthetic limb that is used more for athletic purposes, as opposed to traditional day-to-day use? Through you.

There's not an average cost for these because they are customized and they require very different things for each individual. So I don't have access to that information. Through you.

sn/rr 172 Thank you. Also, I don't remember any specific number. I think I remember numbers in the thousands when we were discussing that. Of course, making the device waterproof often, making it so it's different materials, a little more durable, a little more comfortable, all came into play and, I know, affected the price. Does the good chair have any knowledge as to what the cost or the impact on insurance plans will or could be? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So we do have those numbers. And again, these are potential costs. The potential for FY 2027 for all four of the mandates is $58,000. And in FY '28, $116,000. Again, these are potential costs based on usage. And according to the state employee plan, which is, I think, 255,000 employees, the utilization numbers for PANS for prosthetic devices was extremely low. It was like 0.006% to 0.009%. Through you.

Thank you for that answer. And so would the $58,000, I believe, again, if that's a number we have now, that would be an increase for the year for the state employee plan due to increased usage based on more people knowing about it, more knowledge. Is that correct? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Those numbers are for the plans on the Affordable Care Act. Through you.

sn/rr 174 Thank you. And so would that be $58,000 across all individuals and like plans, or would that be per plan? If the good chair could provide a little more detail. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a potential cost for that year because plans on the exchange, some of them are subsidized through our Covered Connecticut Program. So it'd actually be a cost to the state, and it would be a potential if a certain number of people were to access those benefits. And again, it's hard to say because we don't know who will access those benefits. Through you.

sn/rr 175 Thank you, Ms. Chair for that answer. And just to not to belabor, so the $58,000 then would be divided by all the individuals -- should it be $58,000? Because I know it's an estimate. By all the individuals in that plan for the year. Is that correct? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It actually is a cost to the state for the plans on the exchange that we subsidize. The cost to the individuals would be reflected in a potential higher premium, again, if people access those benefits. Through you.

sn/rr 176 Thank you. And I understand that. And of course, the amount of people who will access it, that is, of course, projection because we don't know exactly who will ask for an additional type. I know I'm sure we have a number of individuals currently, right, who have prosthetic devices, but there, of course, isn't necessarily a guarantee that the individual will ask for an athletic device as well. Now, in getting the athletic device, is there a limit as to how many the individual can ask for? Through you.

There is not. Through you.

sn/rr 177 Okay. So could the individual ask for, no, I want five different devices. One for biking, one for hiking, one for skiing. Is that a possibility? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is determined on, I think, the patient and their doctor. There is something called prior authorizations that a patient would have to get in order to show that getting a device like that is needed. So if there is someone that is actively participating in swimming and they need a swimming device, that seems like something that would be covered under this bill. But if someone was not a hiker and said, I am now doing some sort of athletic hiking program, that might be a harder thing through a prior authorization. Through you.

Thank you for that answer. And knowing that there is a prior authorization process in place, because I think this language maybe is a little bit different than some of the other bills that we do because it is removing a provision, as opposed to either adding or changing a definition, is it correct that we're just not allowing that exclusion per se? Through you.

That is correct. Through you.

sn/rr 179 Okay. And so, even with prior authorization, is it up to the individual's plan as to how many prosthetics, let's say, I don't know, I might say in a five, 10-year period, or lifetime that that plan actually covers? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think these are great questions to ask, and I don't have the answer per everyone's plan. But I was just thinking about a child who is growing. If they lost a limb at birth or at a young age, they might need to access this benefit multiple times because of growing. I would say an individual, if something broke that couldn't be fixed. People change sizes and shapes, too. Adults do. So, I do think that it would really be unique for each individual. It's hard to put a box into how many times people would ask for new prosthetics. Through you.

Thank you for that answer. You bring up a great point, because I wasn't even thinking of a child, and that's, I think, important. As the child grows, like the good chair said, they're going to outgrow what they had before, need a different size over the years. Individuals, I'm sure, their weight changes. Other things about an individual can change their need overall. Right? Again, they get a new job. They have different needs, different lifestyles. But the child example is a very good one. And I just don't have, let's say, not something we necessarily discussed as far as what the actual coverage currently is, not that I remember, at least, in current plans as far as if there's a limit as there are with, let's say, crowns and other type things over a lifetime period. Right? With a crown, you can get one a year. Usually, they cover per tooth, I believe. And of course, this, I'm sure, would have to vary depending on age and if it was destroyed, and so forth. So, very interesting. Are there any other, I'll say besides the sn/rr 181 individuals that we spoke to, other testimony in support of this provision? It would be 6 and 7. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We received dozens, if not more, of testimony in support of this. And also, not only was that in writing, but we had a very long public hearing on this, where dozens of people came to testify in support of this, sharing very unique stories for the reason for us to be talking about it here today. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And yes, I am very thankful. Not only I was able to go through the testimony, review that, and of course, sn/rr 182 we also took time to meet with individuals who were promoting and pushing for this legislation. How many states across the country cover prosthetics and have removed, let's say, the exclusion of athletic coverage? Through you.

I am not aware. Through you.

Was there any opposition that you recall to either this section or the previous two PANS and the scalp cooling? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The only opposition is from insurance carriers warning of the potential increased costs. Through you.

Thank you for that answer. Besides cost, was there any other concerns that they raised? Through you.

They were not. Through you. sn/rr 184

Thank you for that. And I know there were a bunch of anonymous ones that were submitted and various other individuals. Was there submission from providers as well? Through you.

Yes, there were, Mr. Speaker, talking about the benefits of having people be able to access these benefits. The providers were very much in favor of this. And I will say that the bill was very different, didn't come out of committee. Our S language was different for the public hearing. So we did have people make comments about how to improve the bill, which we incorporated into the S language. Through you. sn/rr 185

That will provide a good segue. I know there was a lot of testimony submitted. And again, a lot of times every year, we tend to put a lot of the mandates into one bill so we don't have, of course, I guess, 50 different bills and different mandates over the years. And I do remember that there wasn't a specific language necessarily, but that I know I told my members, for various mandates, if they put in a letter, that we would be doing it on this day and to come in. If the good chair could explain the difference between the S language and the original bill that people testified on, what that main difference is. Through you.

sn/rr 186 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We did not have time to fully draft the language. So the original bill was putting everything in as a study, and then we fully spelled out the language in the S language. Through you.

Thank you for that answer. So moving on to section 8. Section 8 deals with what is here. Again, this is the individual portion of health insurance coverage. Same sections for 38a-469. And so we are repealing, under 38a-509 and the other provision just mentioned, coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility, including but not limited to a few different kinds because there are several different kinds. Ovulation induction, intrauterine insemination, in vitro, otherwise known as IVF, uterine embryo lavage, embryo transfer, gamete intra-fallopian transfer, zygote intra fallopian transfer, and low tubal ovum transfer. sn/rr 187 And in the next line, what we do is we are changing the definition of infertility. If the good chair can, how is the definition of infertility? What is the current, we'll start with that, the current definition of infertility as it stands in our current statutes? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It basically says it's an individual who is unable to conceive or produce conception or sustain a successful pregnancy during a one-year period. And what we're doing is we are updating and modernizing that definition to apply to not just heterosexual couples, but to LGBTQ+ couples and single women. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I know in the past we've gone over, I'd say there's probably a few different categories here. There would be, as the good chair said, an individual woman, two females and two males. And for obvious reasons, I think, since there are different body parts and a male can't carry, well, for the most part, right, a baby, that there's going to be different situations that we're going to be talking about. My question is first, an individual. So currently, is an individual, female, we'll take, goes to a doctor and wants to get pregnant, if she wants to utilize the services of a center, is she covered under her insurance under current law? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know the individual's insurance coverage, so I wouldn't be able to answer that question. Through you. sn/rr 189

If she was part of Access Health and living in Connecticut on an individual plan, would that be covered? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under the current definition, it says it is an individual who is unable to conceive or produce a conception or sustain a pregnancy during a one-year period, so it would apply to her. Through you.

And I thank the good chair for that answer. I'd say maybe it was a trick question a little bit, only because I believe the chair is right. It comes down to whether that individual has, let's say, for the past year, tried to get pregnant. So, in that year period, there basically are some requirements that a doctor will ask. Of course, again, the person's age, right, will also be a factor. Does the individual have any, I believe, basically, sickness, or something that's affected her, and her ability to get pregnant. Would that be correct? Through you.

That is correct. Through you.

Thank you. But, of course, I think what's unclear is whether the individual, and maybe you answered this, if she was not trying, had an Access Health plan, was not trying, but just wanted to have, we'll start with IUI, wasn't sure if she could actually get pregnant, but knows that she can't do it by herself. Would insurance cover that situation? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's a great question, and that really is why we are looking to update the definition because at that stage, if you haven't tried, you wouldn't know if there would be an issue. So we're really trying to say the people that need help in the case where they don't have the gametes, they don't have the necessary ability or the obvious of ability, we want to just make sure the definition is inclusive for them because they're paying for these benefits. sn/rr 192 They already have access to these benefits, but they are unable to tap into them the way the statute is currently written. Unlike the previous three sections, this is not a mandate. This is really just modernizing the definition of who can access infertility treatments. And we're really just putting the state plans or the fully insured plans in line with what self-funded and ERISA plans are already doing. Insurance is already covering this, and we just want to make sure that we're doing the same thing in this statute. So, while we have other mandates in here, I just wanted to make that note that this is not a mandate. This will not be an extra cost. This is already something that these individuals are paying for. Through you.

Thank you. I do appreciate that answer, and there's a few different aspects of that that I'd like to address. I guess, first, sn/rr 193 the aspect that, okay, the individual has this coverage and can't utilize it. Insurance, my understanding of it, covers preventative care, but also in the event of being sick, as I understand it. Right? You have to be sick. So, you have an individual who hasn't necessarily been trying, right? So they're not sure they are unable to get pregnant. But under this now, this woman will have coverage as a result of this bill, even though she is not, let's say, sick, doesn't have some, either through age or some sickness, the inability, right, to have a child. Would that be correct? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, that is not correct. That woman has the ability to seek medical assistance when it comes to fertility now. That is something that her and her doctor would do. Really, what this is just saying is that if someone would like to have a baby that is a single individual, they still would need to sn/rr 194 be checked if they're fertile and healthy and able to go through the process of carrying a child. So it's the medical availability of the benefit. So we're not saying anything is different. We're really just wording it so that it's inclusive to a more modern world. Through you.

Okay. Except that when I'm looking at this, we'll get into the language. Let's say starting on line 190 through 207, it lays out now four different situations in which now what infertility actually is. Or if you go up to line 187, what infertility means. So we're taking out the condition of an individual who is unable to conceive or produce conception or sustain a pregnancy, right, for a year prior. And instead of that, it's now, number one, the inability to establish or carry a pregnancy based on a medical condition, sexual and reproductive history, age, physical findings, diagnostic sn/rr 195 testing, or any combination of that, were not limited to infertility arising from disabilities or from medical treatments or conditions associated with a disability. And I believe we, in the past, went through that. There was an individual who came, who, I think, she was going through chemo. I think it was the first year I was on the committee. And it might have been before the good chair joined Insurance. So, I'm not sure if you remember that. But she was going through chemo and wanted to freeze her eggs, and it was not covered. And I know freezing, that's a little different, but she knew that the chemo would reduce the eggs that she had, and that, coupled with her age, wanted to preserve or, as we say, freeze her eggs for future use because she knew she did want to have children. So that basically would cover number one. So it's a sickness. Let me skip 2. We'll go to 3. An individual's inability to establish a pregnancy or carry a pregnancy to live birth after 12 months of unprotected sexual intercourse when the individual and their partner have the necessary gametes to establish a pregnancy, provided the loss shall not restart the 12-month period. And that's twofold. So the individual gets pregnant, but has lost the baby along the way. sn/rr 196 And sometimes that happens one after the other. They actually get pregnant, but it's just carrying the baby that has not been successful for that person. I have to say, I really like section 3. I know that is something that we have as far as times being covered. Right? And the maximum of times an individual can try to be covered, what actually is covered by insurance, whether it's time or by date. And this one actually simply says that if there is a loss, that that 12-month period doesn't restart. We don't start over at month 1 when they're trying. And I think that's very important because let's say an individual who is older, every month, they have less and less eggs, and lose thousands of eggs every month. So, that number goes down. And actually, for people who didn't know, because I didn't know this for a long time, that you are born with a certain amount of eggs. There isn't any new ones, but you start with that number and then it's reduced over time. Not something that is often told, I think, to women. So, as you get older, you have fewer and fewer and fewer as time goes on. So, the reason I'm saying that is because in this 12-month period, for every month that passes, you're running out of time. sn/rr 197 And you don't want to have a whole year to go by is a lot of time for a woman, and to try again and again. So, I do appreciate that section. Section 4 in that says, an individual's inability to establish a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to live birth after six months of unprotected sexual intercourse due to the individual's age when the individual and the individual's partner have the necessary gametes to establish pregnancy, provided a pregnancy loss shall not restart the six-month period. So again, same concept. We are not restarting that whole six- month period once, again, a pregnancy is not carried through to term. And important for the reasons I just stated, again, some of those months can be very precious when you are running out of time and reaching an age where you have now fewer and fewer eggs. So we'll go back, I guess, to an individual, the situation of an individual. So would that individual, under this new section, would the woman have to say that she'd been trying for six months and has not been able to get pregnant? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to have my colleague, Representative Allie-Brennan, participate in a response.

Not yet? Soon? You can hear me now? Hello, everyone. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the good ranking member, not necessarily under every pathway. Right? I think as the good ranking member laid out, under current law, this relies on a waiting period model. And so you talked about the 12 months and the six months. This bill doesn't touch that. It keeps that here, and it also adds some of these medical treatments. And so some of that is medical circumstances, such as medical history, reproductive history, diagnostic testing, physical findings, medical treatments impacting fertility. So, you have people that may need medical intervention from the outset, and what is that? Endometriosis, blocked fallopian tubes, low sperm sn/rr 199 count. So it's not just single women and LGBTQ couples. It could be men as well and other people who have medical needs. So back to you. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. I'm a little confused. So, are you saying that currently somebody who there's a low sperm count, they wouldn't be covered under current under current law and infertility? Through you.

sn/rr 200 Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Can you repeat, sir?

Pavalock-D'Amato. sn/rr 206

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

sn/rr 211 Representative Wood.

Representative Allie-Brennan, welcome back.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato. sn/rr 212

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato. sn/rr 213

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato. sn/rr 217

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato. sn/rr 223

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Chamber will come to ease.

Chamber will come back to order. sn/rr 224

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And so, based on what the good representative just said, I believe he said that there does still need to be a requirement of something provided by also a doctor. And to me, I don't know if I see that in this bill. Mainly because on line 197, we're changing the definition of an infertility and what actually being sick or infertile means. And so, if there is that requirement of a doctor, even though the definition is being changed, I'm not sure where then that other requirement that the representative mentioned, where in the bill it says that that is required. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will jump in on this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That language is already in existence, and we're not changing that. There is a nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to deny the coverage required by this section to any individual who foregoes a particular infertility treatment or procedure if the individual's physician determines that such treatment or procedure is likely to be unsuccessful. So, we're still making that doctor-patient relationship part of the process and not changing that in the new definition. Through you.

Right. And I see the lines, I believe it's around 211, 215 that the chair is referring to. That nothing limit the coverage for in vitro, etc., for individuals who meet the definition of infertility and have been unable to establish a pregnancy or carry a pregnancy through less expensive and medically viable infertility treatment or procedures covered under such policy. So, again, we go back to the fact that they just have to meet the definition of infertility, right? Which is now you don't have to be sick. And then it does say, and have been able to establish a pregnancy or carry a pregnancy. And so then in that case of a single woman, how is she showing that she's been unable to establish or carry a pregnancy, let's say, if she claims she hasn't been trying and just been going to a sperm bank or is going to go to a sperm bank, and now it will be covered. If the good chair could clarify. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Working with a medical provider, various testing would be done. And if the determination is that a donor gamete is needed, then that would pursue. And if that is unsuccessful, that would determine a path forward or pivoting in a different direction. Through you.

Thank you. Now, I understand what the good chair has explained, and I thank her for that. However, I'm wondering, I don't know if a doctor is needed. If two men go into a doctor's office, they want to have a baby, I'm guessing that we don't need a medical diagnosis that they wouldn't be able to carry the baby. And yet, is that now going to be covered? Is insurance coverage going to be provided for those two men to now have a baby? Through you. sn/rr 228

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The coverage may be covering inseminating a donor surrogate. But, again, that surrogate would be handled under their own health insurance. But the process of using a surrogate would be covered under this bill. Through you.

And so if the good chair could just clarify, the surrogate would have to have her own insurance. And so then what part of the process then would the gentleman's insurance exactly cover? Through you.

It would be the medical process of that surrogate becoming pregnant. Through you.

And so that would be basically, let's say, IUI. Would the IUI procedure itself be covered through this? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It would be the male side of the procedure that is donating the donor gamete. Through you. sn/rr 230

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, maybe I'm going to briefly go over, I think it would benefit the Chamber to go over the different types that currently exist. Obviously, many people probably know that you can just be a sperm donor. There is IUI, which is inserting sperm directly into the uterus. That is usually used, I'll say, as almost an initial step before some other ones. For example, like IVF. IVF would be having retrieving eggs from a female, and then retrieving sperm from a male, and then fertilizing the eggs in a laboratory. And then inserting the fertilized eggs into the female. There is also ICSI, which is like a specialized IVF, where a single sperm is injected to an egg, depending on, again, what steps prior have been taken. IVF is actually what I did, and it's a pretty lengthy process, I'll say. Could the good chair, does she know, let's say, we'll take IUI first, what the average cost of an IUI procedure is? Through you. sn/rr 231

I do not. Through you.

Thank you. And we'll try, let's say IVF, if the good chair is aware the average cost of an IVF procedure. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will pass it over to my colleague, Representative Allie-Brennan. sn/rr 232

Representative Allie-Brennan.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood. sn/rr 245

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

sn/rr 247 Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato?

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood. sn/rr 251

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato. sn/rr 253

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato. sn/rr 254

Representative Wood, could you repeat that, please?

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood, can you repeat?

Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4619, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A".

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there an objection to summarization? Is there an objection? Hearing none, Representative Pavalock-D'Amato, you may proceed with summarization. sn/rr 263

The question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Scheduled "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Wood. sn/rr 264

Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, is there an objection to -- Representative Anderson, you have the floor.

sn/rr 265 Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Have all members voted? Will members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast. If all members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. May Clerk please announce the tally.

The bill as amended fails. The amendment fails, sorry. (gavel) Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Ackert from the 8th.

Representative Wood. Oh.

Representative Wood?

Representative Ackert.

Representative Wood.

Representative Ackert.

All right. So, on the board, if you're speaking on the bill, can you just raise your hand so I can know? I mean, there's no amendment. So, yes. Representative Anderson. sn/rr 271

Representative Allie-Brennan, you're on the board still. Would you like to -- Okay. Representative Pavalock-D'Amato for the second time. sn/rr 272

Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will all staff and guests please come to the well of the House. The machine will be open. sn/rr 273

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast. If all members have voted, the machine will be locked, the Clerk will take the tally. Clerk, please announce the tally.

The bill passes. (gavel) We will stand at ease.

On page 58, Calendar 348, substitute for House Bill No. 5001, AN ACT CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING FOR ALL AND VARIOUS OTHER REFORMS TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS. This has been amended by House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO 4526 on the April 22nd, 2026.

sn/rr 275 Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Winston Churchill famously said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others, and I think anyone who watches us in action would agree. And in that democracy, sometimes we have to fight things out. We have to argue, we have to dispute, and we have to stand our ground to come to a resolution that's just uncomfortable enough for everyone that it makes sense. And I'm happy to report that that's taken place with regard to this bill. This bill, I spoke to you a bit about yesterday. I told you for a brief period of time about how it will expand access to absentee voting, how it will make our elections more efficient, sn/rr 276 how it will make our elections and our voters and our elections officials and elections workers and election sites better protected. All those things are still true, and I still urge everyone to support this bill. But I'm happy to report that there is an amendment that has been reached, and the Clerk is in possession of it. And its LCO No. is LCO No. 4660. And I'll ask the Clerk to please call the amendment, and I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO f4660, designated House Amendment Schedule "E", and offered by Representatives Ritter, Rojas, and Blumenthal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment strikes the current Section 9, which deals with changes to the permanent absentee voting list, and it replaces it with language allowing any elector to sign on to be on a permanent absentee voter application list where they're sent an application to apply for an absentee ballot if they're on that list. It also makes certain conforming changes in relation to those changes, and it makes a minor modification to the election protections in, I believe it's Section 57, in order to ensure that in addition to making clear, which this bill already does, that any officer who's covered by this bill can be within the 250 feet of an election site if they're given permission by the moderator or the secretary of the state, which they can be. If they reside within those 250 feet, they can be at their residence. With that, I move adoption. sn/rr 278

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I can reserve my comments on the amendment until after it's passed if we want to do a voice vote, through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the amendment that's before us. As you may recall, last night about 8:00, I invited everyone to breakfast. And I'm happy that I didn't have to buy everyone breakfast, and that we're here 4:00 in the afternoon and sn/rr 279 that we finally have the amendment to us. So, I do rise in support of the amendment, and missed you all this morning. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All those opposed, say Nay. The Ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Blumenthal.

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Mastrofrancesco.

sn/rr 282 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will all members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. Will the Clerk please call the tally?

The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Chamber will stand at ease. Chamber will come back to order. Representative Piscopo.

Representative Johnson. Representative Rojas. Representative Johnson. sn/rr 284

So ordered.

Chamber will come back to order, and the Clerk will please call 304. Folks could turn off I don't know what the --

I recognize Representative Leeper, the chairman of the Education Committee of the 132nd from the town of Fairfield. You have the floor, madam.

Question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. You may proceed, madam.

Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Would you please call the amendment, madam? All right. Let's back up. Here we go. Will the Clerk please call LCO 4428. We'll mark it House "A".

Representative Leeper. The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Madam, you may proceed with summarization.

Representative Leeper, would you mind moving the amendment for adoption?

Question is adoption of the amendment. Would you care to remark further on the amendment? No comments on the amendment. Okay. Why don't we do a voice vote? There's no objection. There's no objection to a voice vote. I'm going to try your minds on House "A". All those in favor, please signify by saying Aye. (MEMBERS): sn/rr 288 Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, a little over a year ago, in Connecticut, we experienced some shocking tragedy. And after that incident, we began to do a little investigation of how such a thing could happen in our state. And what we learned was that our laws allowed for people who are not homeschoolers, because we know homeschoolers are investing everything into the love and education of their children, but people were fraudulently claiming homeschool as a way to hide neglect and abuse. So, what we have before us is not a panacea. Unfortunately, those do not exist for very complex challenges. But this bill proposes modest steps to build a safety net for children and identify people who are not in good faith homeschooling their sn/rr 289 children but using our previously lack of regulation to hide child abuse and neglect. This bill proposes joining 38 other states in having all children register annually for school, whether that be in a public school, a non-public school, or if they will be educated at home through parent managed learning. This bill also proposes joining four other states in preventing a child from exiting our public schools for homeschooling if the family is in the midst of an active DCF investigation, which is time limited by 33 business days, or if somebody living in the home is on the DCF Central Registry for neglect or abuse. While these things alone may not have prevented the three really high-profile tragedies our state has experienced, they're reasonable steps to create a safety net to protect children. And happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have quite a few questions, if I may.

Thank you. You probably won't. My first question, through you, Mr. Speaker, is, to the proponent of the bill, what is the reason for this bill, through you?

sn/rr 291 Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think I just shared that actually. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, this bill is for safety for our children? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does this bill improve the safety of our children, through you, Mr. Speaker?

I'm going to ask a different question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill is AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF EQUIVALENT INSTRUCTION. Through you, what is equivalent instruction?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Equivalent instruction is the existing law for students who are not enrolled in a public school sn/rr 293 and receiving education elsewhere. And it requires that children are instructed in reading, writing, spelling, English grammar, geography, arithmetic, and United States history and in citizenship, including a study of the town, state and federal governments. It also requires that that instruction be equivalent to what is taught in the public schools, and that families show that equivalent instruction is happening. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And with that explanation, what is it equivalent to? Is it equivalent to Prospect, Waterbury, Bridgeport, Darien? What is that equivalent to, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the existing law does not answer that question. It just says equivalent to what will be taught in the public schools, those subject areas as they would be taught in the public schools.

Thank you. And who would be determining what that equivalent instruction is? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it might be important to reference that equivalent instruction is not in the amendment in the bill sn/rr 295 before us right now, but that was existing law that has been struck in this amendment. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just going off the title. Thank you. I appreciate that.

So, if I start in line 50, because as I see it, the first couple of pages have been struck out. Parent managed learning. Could you please, through you, Madam Speaker, explain what parent managed learning is?

Nice to see you, Madam Speaker. I think through you, my good ranking member highlighted the confusion that existed around the existing definition of equivalent instruction. So, we try to provide some clarity that parent managed learning is not a public school, it's not a non-public school, but it is learning and teaching that is managed by a parent or guardian of a child in either of those two settings. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, basically, it is homeschooling? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Okay. Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

sn/rr 298 Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 299

Representative Zupkus.

sn/rr 300 Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus, if you could clarify your question, please.

Great. Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 302

Thank you. Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

sn/rr 303 Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Thank you. Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 305

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus. sn/rr 306

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper, could you please repeat your answer?

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 312

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 313

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Let's find out. Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus?

Representative, the House rules dictate that we do ask questions pertaining to the legislation in front of us. Is this located in this particular bill?

Through you, Madam Speaker, it says, in line - well, a few times in here - but on line 76, who will be five years of age, they have to fill out a form, every parent, annually. So, my question is related to this, how do they know that my child is sn/rr 320 five years? If I don't know that I have to fill out a form, how will I know? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Again, we're not proposing any change to current practice. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, what is the current practice, through you?

Madam Speaker, is that germane to this bill?

Thank you. Yes, it is. Because if this law is saying every person that has a five-year-old child has to fill out a form, how are the people going to know where do I get the form? Where do I fill the form? Where do I send the form? How do I know there's even a form? What is the form? So, it absolutely pertains to this bill. Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 322 I mean, through you, Madam Speaker, all I can speak of is I have two children. They're very young. When it was time for them to go to kindergarten, I received a letter for my children to enroll in kindergarten from the school district. How the school district gets that data was not a part of this conversation because we're not changing it. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, the bottom line is we don't know. So, if I don't know how I get a form and I don't get it in the mail or snail mail and it's past September 1, what happens if I don't fill out the form? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. The district would be responsible for making three attempts if they don't receive it after the first year. If the question is, through you, Madam Speaker, in the first instance, if you don't ever get the form, how would the district know if you're not showing up to school and you're only ever going to be educating in parent managed learning? The district wouldn't know. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That's the question. That's the answer. So, if I don't have a form, I don't know about a form, the school won't even know. And no one knows that I have the five- year-old and they're not in school. Okay. All right. So, this form has to be filled out by October 1st by every parent. And I understand it is an option form. How do I fill out this form, through you, Madam Speaker? sn/rr 324

Through you, Madam Speaker. Current statute requires parents must personally appear to fill out the option form.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, my child's five. I may not want to send them in, so I fill out an option form. I have to go into the school system or the school board of ed. If my child turns six and I don't want to send them, what is the process, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. It's the same process. The parent must personally appear to fill out the option form. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, if my child is five and I decide I want to homeschool them, send them to school, whatever it may be, what is that process? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. The parent would fill out the intent to educate form. Through you, Madam Speaker. sn/rr 326

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And do what with it, through you?

The district will add it to its records. Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 327 Thank you. My question is, I fill it out, do I submit it? Do I go in-person? What is the process? Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Sorry for my misunderstanding. Yes, you submit it to the district. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. And is that submission in-person or is that submission electronically? Through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. It could be either. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if I continue on 77, there is also, they talk about the option form, the intent to educate form, or a withdrawal form. And through you, Madam Speaker, what is a withdrawal form?

sn/rr 329 Through you, Madam Speaker. When you withdraw your child from school, you submit a withdrawal form to indicate your child will no longer be attending that school. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And how are these forms? Are they created? Will they be created? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. The option form already exists because that's current practice. The intent to educate form and the withdrawal form are tasked for SDE to create. Through you, Madam Speaker. sn/rr 330

Thank you. And when will these forms be created? Through you, Madam Speaker.

They should be available for districts not later than July 1, 2027.

sn/rr 331 Thank you, Madam Speaker. Also in line 79, it says that shall annually complete an intent to educate form. And so, who will be filling these forms out annually? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Parents or guardians.

Thank you. And as I read this section here, it says, I'm understanding it as everybody, when you sign an intent to educate your child form, everybody that has signed one annually will continue to fill those out annually. Is that correct, through you, Madam Speaker? sn/rr 332

Through you, Madam Speaker. That's correct, until either you graduate from school or withdraw from school.

Thank you. So, annually, unless you withdraw your child, but annually, every parent or guardian will fill out an intent to educate form, whether I am homeschooling or parent managed learning, or private or non-public or public school. Is that correct, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. That's correct.

And are these forms used -- through you, Madam Speaker, just to clarify, can they be in-person or electronic, and who do they go to? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. In person or electronic, yes, that's correct. And they go to the local or regional board of education. sn/rr 334

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, the board of education will manage, collect. If I don't fill up my form, go get it. So, is the local board of ed managing this process? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes.

sn/rr 335 So, Madam Speaker, through you, if that is the case, who on the board? Do they pick a person? How does a board of education member manage this process? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. I'm grateful for the opportunity to clarify. The local regional board of ed is what our school districts are referred to in the statutes. Through you, Madam Speaker.

I apologize, I had to ask. I did not hear. I'm sorry.

Madam Speaker, more than happy to. I'm glad you asked that question for clarification. Local and regional boards of education is what we refer to as school districts in the statutes. So, it's not the actual elected board members, it's our school district. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. So, school district is very broad. So, who in the school district would this fall under? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the superintendent or his or her designee. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I see this as a big mandate on schools. As the chair knows, when we sit in the Education Committee, we hear about we don't have enough teachers, we don't have enough money, we don't have enough of all of these tools to teach our children. And it seems to me we're putting another job, if you will, on someone in the school. Is that true, through you, Madam Speaker?

sn/rr 338 Through you, Madam Speaker. Actually already in our statutes. I think it's 10-250. All of our districts are required to know every single child who physically resides within their boundaries. We just have never enforced it or created a system for districts to collect that data. And so, we are doing that here. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so, if it's never been enforced, and it sounds to me people assume it's never been done. So, if it hasn't been done, there's nobody doing it, now there has to be somebody to do it. So, again, this is a mandate. It could be an unfunded mandate, through you, Madam Speaker, because now we have to have a certain person in our school system that is assigned this whole new job that is not an easy process, and we don't have enough teachers, we don't have enough schools. So, through you, Madam Speaker, how will this position, this new sn/rr 339 job that someone is going to have to take on, going to be paid for? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Our districts already have people who are doing sort of the kindergarten enrollments for everybody coming into the public school every year and anybody who moves into district, how you're enrolling all of those children. And so, we don't see this as any different from that, especially because these forms can be submitted electronically. It will go into whatever electronic system for student management that the district uses. Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 340 Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, understanding that kindergarten already exists and enrollment and all of those things, but this is for every child every year. Is that correct, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. That's correct. And we've allowed for attendance at the Torrington Public Schools to come fulfill this requirement for public schools. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just another question on the five- year-old since we're still on this little section here. So, as an example, my children, their birthdays are 09/11 and 09/17. And so, sn/rr 341 how would they fall under this if they're five on 09/17 and 09/11? Through you, Madam Speaker.

If they are not five by 09/01, which is the requirement to be enrolled in kindergarten, if I'm understanding the good ranking member's question correctly, you would not be required to file any paperwork until the following year when they will be five by September 1st. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that clarification. Moving into the next part, lines 81 through 93. So, as we just heard, anybody from five to 16 years of age, 17, I guess 12th grade, the parents sn/rr 342 have to fill out this form. So, in our systems, we have private schools. So, whether it's, I don't like to name any, Fairfield View, Choate, Taft, whoever it is, right? So, some of those, they would have to have a parent fill out an intent to educate form as this bill, as we've talked about already. We have many children that come to our private schools in this state from another state, another country. So, what would happen if a child is at Choate from Saudi Arabia? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. If I'm understanding the question, if the student is not a Connecticut resident, then they don't reside in a town and aren't a part of that district where you would submit a form. Through you, Madam Speaker.

So, just to clarify, would their parents have to fill out an intent to educate form or not? Through you, Madam Speaker.

If a child's parent or guardian resides in Saudi Arabia and not in Connecticut, they wouldn't have a local district to submit a form to. Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 344 And if there is a child from another state? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. The same logic would apply.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, if I reside in Indiana and I send my child to one of the schools here, then I can just pull my child out without a withdrawal form? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. You wouldn't have a district in which you reside to submit the form to. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, this is only to Connecticut residents. So, if there's any other children in our state, in our school systems that don't live in a local district, then they don't have to abide by this law? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. In this instance, also those schools would meet the requirement by submitting the annual sn/rr 346 attendance report as is required in line 89. So, I think both ways the children are accounted for. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And would they have to fill out a withdrawal form if they pull their kid out of Choate? I'll use Choate as an example. I pull them out in 10th grade. Would I have to fill out a withdrawal form? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Again, in this instance, you live in Indiana, your child boards at Choate, and you withdraw them from Choate. There's not a local district to submit a withdrawal form to. Through you, Madam Speaker. sn/rr 347

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, it just pertains to children in Connecticut. Also, if you continue to go down, it says that, in line 85, a child attending a non-public school, the parent or guardian shall provide evidence. What is evidence, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. Evidence could be a letter of enrollment, acceptance, tuition payment. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker. So, a letter would suffice, because I certainly would not submit my receipt of what I'm paying for school? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. A letter confirming your child's enrollment in that school would suffice. Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 349 And again, through you, Madam Speaker, only for Connecticut residents. So, if you're from another state, you come here, whatever, you don't have to do any of this. So, continuing down in line 86 on through 93. This talks about how the intent to educate form must be completed. And we know because previously, every person, parent or guardian, who signs an intent to educate form must do it annually. However, that's not really true because in this case, now we're carving out people. So, even though this bill says annually, everybody must fill out a form, in this section, that's not true. So, if I'm in a public school, I fill out an intent to educate form in first grade or kindergarten, I don't have to submit it anymore. Through you, Madam Speaker, is that correct?

Through you, Madam Speaker. If your child appears and attends the school, that is going to be complying with this provision. If sn/rr 350 you don't show up, you do not attend, and you do not submit the form, then you would be out of compliance with this requirement. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, that's a public school. In a non-public school, I enroll my child. I fill out an intent to educate form annually. However, if my kid is in a private school, do I have to do this annually as the bill say? Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 351 Through you, Madam Speaker. If the school is filing the annual student attendance report to SDE, that would comply with this requirement. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I find that a little contradicting, to be honest, because the bill says annually, every parent or guardian must fill out an intent to educate form. Now we're saying that's not true. That's not right. Only, I guess, why would you - - what group of people have to continually, every year, fill out an intent to educate form? Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 352 Through you, Madam Speaker. This bill says every parent or guardian must fill out the intent to educate form. And we're providing options for our public schools where children will be appearing every single day, and same with our non-public schools to comply. If those schools also want to collect each individual form in addition to the registration they already have on those children in their system, they have that option. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, really, there's only one group of people that have to fill out this form every single year, and it is our homeschooling group. With that, if the attendance, which, by the way, is just one group that is being forced to do that. The other groups don't have to do it. So, there's only one group that must do it. If the attendance records are submitted, so a non- public school, where do they send their attendance records? Through you, Madam Speaker. sn/rr 353

Through you, Madam Speaker. To the State Department of Education.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so, our public schools, elementary, middle school, high school, send their attendance records to SDE, and that checks the box so mom and dad or guardian don't have to fill out that form every year. Is that the same for non-public schools? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. The data collection around public schools and non-public public schools is a little bit different, and we've tried to provide flexibility to avoid additional mandates so that children who are being seen every day have some flexibility on how that data is being shared with SDE. And the non-public data sharing is consistent with existing requirements in state statute. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I hear people that are seen every day, and I would a little disagree with that. I think everybody is seen every day. No matter what your case is, somehow you're seen. But anyway, we'll get into that in a little bit. So, when you submit these attendance records, are their names attached to these attendance records? Through you, Madam Speaker. sn/rr 355

Through you, Madam Speaker. The attendance records are student count by town, by school.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, I take it there are no names attached to these attendance records? Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 356 Through you, Madam Speaker. I believe I answered that question.

So, Madam Speaker, if we are using these as check the box, that you don't have to fill out an intent to educate form, how do you know who are these children? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Every parent or guardian must submit an intent to educate form in the initial instance so that who those children are is known. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. But if I'm not filling it out every single year, you don't necessarily know. And we're saying one group, every single year you have to do this so we know who you are. But we're saying to two other groups you don't have to do it, we don't have names, we don't know. So, if somebody's in a private school and it's submitted, you don't know who that kid is or if that kid is still in school. Is that correct, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. Public school students are required to enroll every single year. If those kids don't show up, there's a whole protocol of what happens. For our non-public schools, we are also saying if you withdraw from that public school sn/rr 358 or if you don't show up, I would assume that the non-public school have a system to make sure they know where their children are. But if you are withdrawing from that public school for another nonpublic school for equivalent, for a parent managed learning or to go back into your public school, a withdrawal form is required. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And we'll get into withdrawal forms in a minute. But, again, there are no names, so we really don't know who those kids are is my point. So as we continue on, in this bill, the next, 94 through 102 is talking about the option form. And so could the good chair please just explain 94 to 102 in that bill, please? Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker. I think we discussed this. This is existing law that allows for a parent or guardian, to do what we often refer to as redshirting. So five year olds, you can come personally appear, fill out an option form to waive the enrollment for that year. You can do that again at six if you decide. Seven is then when your child must be enrolled in school. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. And I'll just ask a formality question. Through you, Madam Speaker, I understand, existing law and all these are underlined. Why are these underlined if it's existing law? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. I think just because they've been moved from where they reside currently in the statutes. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Oh, okay. Thank you. It's a little hard to hear. And then it talks about, so understanding by seven, they have to be in. With the option form, as I see it, the parent or guardian has to personally appear in school. And when they go in, the district shall provide information, through you, Madam Speaker, to the parent or guardian?

sn/rr 361 Through you, Madam Speaker. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Continuing on, it talks about kids moving into the district. Could the good representative please explain the process of moving into a district? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, we're clarifying that within 14 days of moving to a district, a parent needs to cause an intent to educate form to be submitted on their child's behalf. Through you, Madam Speaker. sn/rr 362

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And, again, I guess this goes back to my initial question. If I'm moving into a district, how do I know I have to fill out a form? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, it is customary to expect children from, we'll say, seven to 18 to be required to be enrolled in school. And when you move to a new town, to reach out to your school district to enroll them in that school. We're just calling that form the intent to educate form for the purpose of the statute Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if the child is moving from another--, parents are in the military, whatever it may be, moving here, and they homeschool their kids, how would I know that I have to fill out a form? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Hopefully, this conversation has been instructive and helpful. But there will need to be some information to go out to families to understand the changes that are happening Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't believe those people would be listening to us tonight. But with that, how do they get it, if it goes out to them? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. I think through the paper, on TV. I suspect this might be on the news later tonight. There's lots of public opportunities for sharing information. Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 365 Thank you, Madam Speaker. But they haven't even moved in here today, so they're not here tonight listening or watching the news tomorrow. But I still don't have a clear answer as to, if I move into this state and I homeschool my children, I'm in the military, I come from another state, my husband got a job here, whatever it may be. So what I'm hearing then is there is going to be a campaign, if you will, through you Madam Speaker, to educate people?

Through you Madam Speaker, does the good ranking member mind repeating that last piece? I'm sorry. I missed that last piece.

sn/rr 366 So if I'm not here now, so I don't know this is all going on. I move in because in the military, I move into the military or the father gets a job at EB, wherever, and we move to this state and I homeschool my children, how will I know? And the answer was the news, it'll be everywhere, all these things. But so that tells me, through you, Madam Speaker, that, is there going to be a campaign to spread the word? How are people going to know if they move into this state that they must do this if they homeschool their children? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. In the military example, I would imagine the military will be very well equipped, to let their incoming families know what would be expected for their family. My brother's active duty has been for almost 30 years. They're very organized about what are the laws required for their family. What we've also learned for a nonmilitary family sn/rr 367 moving into the state planning to only ever homeschool, is that our homeschool families are in very rich communities, very robust. They communicate with one another about lots of opportunities that are available, and I would imagine that information would be available to them. I know of several in Connecticut websites that are very clear in forming and educating our homeschool families about what exactly our laws require. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. And I would agree with the chair that they are very rich in environment community. This is within 14 days. You're moving. You're trying to get everything settled. What happens if within 14 days I don't fill out that form? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. The bill doesn't propose any penalty. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Okay. Thank you. So I may never fill out the form, and there's never a penalty Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. There's not a penalty proposed in this bill. That's correct.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Going to line 115. This talks about for the school year commencing July 01, 2028. Now we're getting into the withdrawal form. So, well, could the good representative please explain the withdrawal process? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Yes. And I know the way this is laid out in the timeline, is a little confusing to read. But in this, Subparagraph 4, if you're withdrawing beginning in July 1st, 2028 from a non-public school, you have to submit a withdrawal form, and then update your intent to educate form to inform the district of where you're going. Through you, Madam Speaker.

So, trying to understand, so if I'm going to a non-public school, which would be if my child is in special ED outplacement, approved or not approved by the SDE, in a Catholic school, all of these things, if I pull my child out, I have to complete a withdrawal form? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Yes.

sn/rr 371 Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus. sn/rr 383

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

sn/rr 389 Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Yeah. Sure. Representative Zupkus, if you could clarify the question, that would be a help to the good chairwoman.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 394

Representative Zupkus.

sn/rr 395 Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

sn/rr 396 Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 397

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 400

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 404

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 405

Representative Zupkus.

Yeah. Representative Leeper, if you could repeat your answer loudly?

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus. sn/rr 407

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

sn/rr 408 Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 409

Representative Zupkus.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Only select people. There's a process for who is selected. They get an authentication key. It's obviously, a very protected and sensitive portal, but there's an individual within each district that has access to that. Through you, Madam Speaker. sn/rr 410

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did not read the bill this way, so this really sends a red flag up for me. So, I just want to be really clear as to understanding what the representative is saying. So what I just heard was, there are very specific people that have access to the DCF registry. That is, concerning because even though it's a certain person, I was under the impression by this bill, and if I read it wrong, that they do not have access to the registry. So if I'm hearing correctly, they do have access to the registry? Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 411 Through you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to be very clear about this. Nobody has access to the registry. You have access to the portal to the registry, which is queries back if there is a hit on the name, date of birth, address, gender. Those are the categories that you could enter, and there either is a return or not, but you don't see anything beyond just the response to your query. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. And so this special person gets a withdrawal form, takes the information from the withdrawal form that has other people in the house, all my whatever information, they put it into this portal and submit it, and then they get information back saying what? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. It's a yes or no from DCF.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And a yes or no that you cannot withdraw your child, a yes or no if Leslie Zupkus is okay, but the husband's not, or the aunt is, the uncle's not, the sister is, the brother's not. What is the yes or no in regards to? Through you Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 413 Through you Madam Speaker, there would either be a return for a name and date of birth, address, gender that you put into the portal or not. And so you're going to go through each person and you will see which individual is either on the registry or not. And that will be the information you have and are required to share back with a parent or guardian who's trying to withdraw their child. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So the yes or no again, I just want to be really clear here. So the yes or no is to attach to each individual that has been submitted to DCF. Is that correct? And the yes or no means what? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I want to make sure I'm understanding the question correctly. The districts are not informing DCF somebody is trying to withdraw their child. They are just accessing through the portal whether or not there is a return to the query of the individuals that are on that form. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. My thought process is, the special person in school that has access to this portal gets the information from the withdrawal form. So I fill out a withdrawal form. I obviously have to put everybody over 18 on this withdrawal form. That person takes the withdrawal form and puts in all the names. I don't know whatever, what information they put in. That's an important question. sn/rr 415 What information would be going into the DCF portal? And when it comes back, would it say Leslie Zupkus, yes or no? Husband's Zupkus, child's Zupkus, cousin's Zupkus, aunt's Zupkus, whoever's in the house, is it individualized yes or no, per person? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. I would imagine either returns the name is on the portal or there's no return, because that name doesn't exist. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, this portal is cross referencing. If somebody is on the child abuse or neglect registry, sn/rr 416 and we haven't gotten to open investigations yet, or they have an open investigation. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. That's correct.

Thank you. So, my question is, if I'm putting four names or seven names on a form that each of these individuals that are over 18 are going to be cross checked into DCF. If one, two, seven come back, it's going to say Sam Smith, yes. That means that Sam Smith is either on the registry or has an active open case? Through you, Madam Speaker. Is that correct? sn/rr 417

Through you, Madam Speaker, it would mean, yes, they're either on the registry or have an active investigation. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. So in theory, there could be one, two, three, or zero people in the house that is going to be checked, yes. So there could be, if there's more than one person on the registry, it's going to come back, I would hope, with the name of that person that is on the registry. Through you, Madam Speaker. Is that correct?

Through you, Madam Speaker. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So whoever is on the registry, when you submit your withdrawal form, the person puts all the names and information of those people into the DCF portal. If it comes back and whoever is on the registry or on an open and active investigation, their names, one, two, however many it is, will come back saying, this person's on it. This person's yes. This person's yes.

Through you, Madam Speaker, you're not submitting a list of names. It's probably you type in the one thing. It's either returned or there's no. Then you would do the next one. So you would get that information as you go. You're not submitting a list of names to DCF to send back to you. A small clarification, but I think important. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So either way, every name will go in. And if there's an active case or they're on a list, they will get a yes or no, whether it's individually or a list. It'll come back to the school or that person saying these people are yeses. So then what happens? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Hopefully, there are no yeses. Hopefully. And families withdraw their child and make the educational choice. If there is somebody residing in the home over 18 on the central registry, then the parent cannot withdraw their child for parent managed learning. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to back up for one second because there is a federal law, I guess. It's called FERPA, and it stands for Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. And excuse me, through you, Madam Speaker, how does this comply or not comply with FERPA? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, we're not sharing any student information. We're inquiring on adults, and that information is generally considered directory information in regards to, FERPA. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So as I understand it, even an adult, the school system, due to FERPA, that information cannot be used. So I'm curious as to how that information can be given up from a school to DCF under this FERPA? Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 422 Through you, Madam Speaker, directory information is an allowable, sharing of this type of information. But, again, we're not sharing student data. We're doing an inquiry on adults, and neither commissioner raised this approach as a FERPA concern. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I'm to understand it that FERPA does not apply to adults? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, it is my understanding it is about the sharing of student data. Through you. sn/rr 423

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think there may be some strong disagreement to that, and we will have to see what happens, because probably this would end up in the courts in some way, shape, or form. So when the school submits this information into the portal, the school has two days to put the form in the system? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Just for clarification, there's no submission of a form. The school district will get the list of names on the form and then they will do a query on the names and they have two days to initiate that query. sn/rr 424 The only reason DCF would need additional time, those extra five days, is if a hand check is required because John Smith, and John Smith live at the same address, for example. And you didn't have the date of birth. So two John Smiths at the same address, maybe father and son, are returned. And so they then do a hand check to make sure of which one is the correct individual. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Madam Speaker, when this information is put into the cross check DCF system, what causes someone to be on the abuse, child abuse and neglect registry? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, there is DCF protocol on the specific crimes, death of a child, sexual abuse of a child, lasting harm. They are substantiated and then also reviewed in terms of intent, severity, and chronicity. So happening repeatedly. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, in our public school systems right now, we do or do not know if a child in our public school systems, parent, family member, anybody residing in the household is on that registry? Through you, Madam Speaker.

sn/rr 426 Through you, Madam Speaker. That's correct.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And could, the good representative please talk about the open investigation piece and what that means? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. We are asking for children not to be removed during that time limited 33 business days, of an active investigation so as to not impede the investigation of a reasonable suspicion of child neglect or abuse. So the child will remain, so that that investigation can conclude. Through you, Madam Speaker. sn/rr 427

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through that, then the superintendent has to tell a person who, if they're on the registry, not a good person, that they cannot withdraw their child. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Yes. The superintendent or the superintendent's designee.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would think if you're telling someone who's on a list that they can't withdraw their child, what if they do? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, was the question what if they do?

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 429

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Sure. Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus, can you clarify the question for the good chairwoman? sn/rr 435

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

sn/rr 436 Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

sn/rr 439 Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

sn/rr 442 Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

sn/rr 444 Representative Zupkus.

You're welcome.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

sn/rr 447 Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 448

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

I'm sure she doesn't. Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Madam, was there a question?

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus. sn/rr 463

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

That's okay, Madam. I've been called worse.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

sn/rr 469 Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper. sn/rr 472

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Leeper.