Submitted by State Rep Kimberly Fiorello (R-149)
Dear Editor:
I am writing this response to a letter to the letter by Missy Barkin and Jeannie Kriftcher published in the Greenwich Free Press on October 17, 2022. (LETTER: Fiorello Voted No on Coverage for Breast Cancer Testing and Treatment) This letter leaves the reader to draw misleading conclusions regarding my vote on SB358: An Act Concerning Required Health Insurance Coverage for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Screening.
As a woman and a mother of three daughters, it is a natural instinct for me to care about women’s health legislation. I want to support laws that genuinely help women. Understanding exactly what this bill does is important to discerning whether it actually helps women or not.
To start, Connecticut law already mandates breast and ovarian cancer screenings in accordance with the American Cancer Society, ASC, guidelines. SB358 added new mandates on top of already-existing mandates. This bill did two main things: (1) it moved the start year for mandated mammogram screening from 40 years of age, as recommended by the American Cancer Society, to 35 years of age; and (2) it prohibited insurance companies from charging any cost sharing, meaning no co-pays or any out-of-pocket expenses, for these services. When you do not allow any co-pays or out-of-pocket cost sharing while increasing health care usage, you either drive up the premiums or deductibles for health insurance or both. This is part of the reason why many individual insurance holders will complain that, in Connecticut, deductibles are ridiculously high.
There are two broader points that the people of Connecticut must know:
(1) POOR INFORMATION LEADS TO POOR POLICY – In 2009, the legislature passed a law empowering the Legislature’s Insurance Committee to demand a Health Benefit Review Report, which would do a thorough analysis on the impact of any health mandate on insurance premiums. The last time this Committee asked for this report was in 2014. Since then our state government and our governor have signed into law health mandates without ever bothering to know their impacts on health insurance premiums. The “fiscal notes” attached to health insurance bills that say the bill will have “no fiscal impact” are related to the impact the bills have on the state budget, not the impact of the bills on our health insurance premiums.
(2) STATE LAWMAKERS CAN TOUCH ONLY 30% OF THE INSURANCE MARKET. Every mandate passed by the legislature directly impacts the “fully-insured” group who are the individuals, contractors and small businesses who get their insurance from the health insurance exchange market. The other 70% are in the “self-insured” group who are those whose health insurance is provided by the big corporations they work for. For example, Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney take care of their employees’ health insurance themselves, hence the terminology “self-insured.” So, to be clear, our state government and our governor are raising the costs of insurance for the little guy – the individual, the contractor, or small business owner – not for the employees of large corporations.
I have written about what we need to do to tackle our state’s high health insurance costs. Please read my Aug 2022 op-ed here.
Right now, Connecticut is the 6th highest in the country for heath care costs by state. Just this summer health insurance companies on and off the exchange came before the state insurance regulatory commission to request steep premium hikes for 2023. At the same time, some insurance companies like Harvard Pilgrim are exiting the Connecticut insurance market altogether in 2023. Many, many women who are my constituents are seeing their health insurance costs skyrocket because they help run small family businesses or they are single, self-employed entrepreneurs and buy their insurance on the exchange. Their struggle is real.
I have tremendous respect for my constituents and I work very hard to do by right by them. I read every bill. I speak with subject matter experts. I take hard votes because I hold our government to the standards we hold ourselves – we would never make decisions for our households or our businesses the way Hartford does with running our government.
I am grateful for the authors’ attention to the bills being passed in Hartford. It is vital that more of us citizens are informed and engaged. This is the secret sauce to better government — informed and engaged citizens. And I’m grateful to the Greenwich Free Press for promptly publishing my response. Thank you very much.
In Service,
State Representative Kimberly Fiorello