 |
|

|
 |
 |

S.B.1147 An Act Concerning Health Care Coverage
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Bill Language (Final action: Died with no action)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Committee Bill Raised Bill 1147
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | This bill, popularly known as the "pay or play" bill, attempted to address the problem of large employers who do not provide affordable health insurance to their low-wage employees; employees who then use the HUSKY program for health insurance. The original language was modeled after California's law. The intent was not necessarily to adhere to California's model, but rather to use it for a vehicle for debate and discussion around how such a law might look in Connecticut.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Labor Committee, JFS Language
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | After public hearing testimony and negotiations with advocacy groups, primarily CEO and Health Care for All, the Labor Committee proposed substitute language. This new languagl proposed a variety of mechanisms for employers to either provide insurance or pay into a system to provide insurance to their employees. The bill 1) established a Health Security Surcharge for all companies with 100 or more employees not providing health coverage to their employees, 2) created a HUSKY W insurance plan for low wage workers and their families, 3) required companies with more than 100 employees to show proof of health coverage that is substantially equivalent to the state employee plan in quality or cost and 4) assessed a fee for those employers that do not meet the coverage standards.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Finance Committee JFS Language
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | In order to get the bill out of the finance committee, the Senate Chairperson required that a change be made to the bill. Specifically, she required that the bill apply to employers with 5000 or more employees and that the requirements in the bill, including any calculations, be based only upon the number of full time employees.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | The Labor Committee had a public hearing on the bill on March 17. Numerous interested parties testified on either side of the bill, including the CBIA and Walmart testifying against.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | The Labor Committee voted 9 to 4 in favor of the bill on a party line vote.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | In the Finance Committee, the substitute language passed on a close vote of 26 to 22. The Senate Chairperson, Sen. Daily, voted against the bill, despite the fact that the substitute language reflected a change that she had demanded. All of the Republicans voted against the bill, as did the following Democrats: Daily, Altobello, Beamon, Berger, Gaffey, Leone and Widlitz.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | In the Human Services Committee, Republican Rep. Caron proposed an amendment to change the bill into a study. The amendment failed on a party line vote. The bill then passed 9 to 6 on another predictable party line vote.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | The bill sat on the Senate Calendar as negotiations went on behind closed doors in an effort to pass language that might have some impact, albeit small. Numerous amendments were filed on the bill, including a "conscience clause" amendment that would have exempted "religious employers" from being required to provide benefits to domestic or civil union partners of an employee.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | In the final days of the session, health care advocates, working with Senator Looney and Rep. Donovan, agreed to strip the bill of all the provisions except for the Health Security Surcharge. Thus, the bill would have required all covered employers to pay the surcharge minus any credit earned by the employer for the employer's costs of providing health care benefits or payments in lieu of bnefits. The surcharge was calculated as 25% of the minimum wage multiplied by the total number of hours worked for each employee for which the surcharge applies. The funds collected would have been deposited into the General Fund for the purpose of defraying the cost of providing health care coverage to employees of covered employers. Ultimately, no action was taken by the Senate on the bill, as leadership could not rally enough support for the bill in the waning hours of the session. In addition, the Republicans were threatening to filibuster every controversial bill that was called, thus holding up bills that were priorities for other legislators.
|
 |
 |
|


 |
 |
 |