SB 1479, An Act Concerning Arbitration And Health Care

TESTIMONY OF THE CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
SUBMITTED TO THE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE

Tuesday, March 11, 2025

The Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA) appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony concerning SB 1479, An Act Concerning Arbitration And Health Care. CHA opposes the bill.

Connecticut hospitals and health systems care for patients, strengthen the state’s economy, and support vulnerable communities across the state. Every day, they work to improve healthcare access, affordability, and health equity. Even as they face ongoing challenges, hospitals provide world-class care to everyone who walks through their doors, regardless of their ability to pay. Hospitals also support an exemplary workforce as the largest collective employer in the state, contribute significantly to the state’s economy, and invest in their communities addressing social drivers of health.

SB 1479 seeks to prohibit all “mandatory arbitration clauses” between a healthcare provider and a patient if the arbitration clause deals with a billing dispute. We understand the desire to ensure that patients have a fair and transparent understanding of their rights and options when entering a contract with anyone, including a healthcare provider. And that “fine print” should not be used to surprise patients. But the bill does not address those issues in a meaningful way. Instead, the bill imposes a broad ban on all binding arbitration. The bill is not sufficiently tailored to meet basic legal thresholds for enforceability.

For example, the bill would prohibit these types of clauses even if a patient was notified, informed, and knowingly chose to enter into the contract. That type of prohibition interferes with the right to contract. The bill would prohibit a binding arbitration clause even for a billing dispute that had previously been resolved and then, later, a patient defaulted on a payment plan. For practical purposes, the bill makes it infeasible, if not impossible, to use available alternative dispute resolution forums — widely accepted for decades as less costly than civil lawsuits — simply because healthcare is involved in the contract.

Tying the prohibition to being a Medicaid participating provider, when the prohibition does not affect Medicaid patients or the Medicaid program, is an overreach that further calls into question the threshold enforceability of the bill.

Additionally, the term “health care provider agreement with a patient” in line 4 is confusing. That term is universally used to describe participation agreements between a provider and an insurance entity or insurance program. As used in SB 1479, it’s not clear what the term means.

Thank you for your consideration of our position. For additional information, contact CHA Government Relations at (203) 294-7301.