SB 227, An Act Concerning Prescription Drugs And Over-The-Counter Diet Pills And Supplements

TESTIMONY OF THE CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL LAW COMMITTEE

Monday, February 23, 2026

The Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA) appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony concerning SB 227, An Act Concerning Prescription Drugs And Over-The-Counter Diet Pills And Supplements.  CHA has concerns about portions of the bill, as drafted.

Connecticut hospitals make our state stronger by delivering nationally recognized, world-class care, supporting jobs and economic growth, and serving communities across Connecticut.  Every day, hospitals improve access, affordability, and health equity — providing care to all patients regardless of ability to pay.  At the same time, hospitals invest in their workforce and local communities, even as they navigate significant financial and federal challenges.

SB 227, among other things, seeks to introduce a new term, “legally protected health care activity,” to describe reproductive healthcare and gender-affirming care actions, inactions, or related efforts.

First, we object to the terminology “legally protected health care activity” (first used at lines 142-144) because that phrasing carries an obvious connotation (if not the legal weight) of making other types of care potentially not “legally protected” in Connecticut.  It creates unnecessary confusion and is problematic.  This is a shield law, so to achieve a more accurate and less problematic result, we strongly urge that the phrase “specially shielded health care activity” be used in place of “legally protected health care activity” each time it appears in the bill.

Also, the bill’s language should reflect the intended impact is to shield the participation of patients or providers in the two identified, and already legally protected, types of healthcare.  The care is already legal under Connecticut law; this shield does not make the care legal; it clarifies the scope of the shield. 

Second, with respect to Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the bill, we are concerned that changing prescription labels and computer entry order systems to mask prescribers’ names will be more burdensome than it sounds.  It could raise billing, fraud, and regulatory record-keeping issues for providers.  We ask that all stakeholders be consulted to ensure this well-intentioned framework can work in practice, including retail pharmacies, health insurers, and the Connecticut Departments of Consumer Protection (DCP), Public Health (DPH), and Social Services (DSS) — including the Medicaid reimbursement and fraud units.

Further, we ask that the following language be added to reduce the risk of penalizing providers who are in good faith trying to follow the new mandate (in the face of dozens of other misaligned mandates that govern billing, insurance, and computerized order entry requirements, among other things):

NEW. Nothing in Sections 3, 4, or 5 of this Act shall be construed to create any liability, whether civil, criminal, professional or otherwise, for any institution or person who facilitates a written or electronic prescription that does not use the name and signature of the prescribing practitioner.

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