The state’s largest business organization is taking Connecticut legislators to task after the Appropriations Committee failed Monday to approve a bill that aims to help small businesses with their health care costs.
The committee, during its meeting Monday, voted on a motion to consider House Bill 5378, which would allow small businesses to pool their workforces through a structure known as a “multiple employer welfare arrangement,” or MEWA.
The proposal intended to give small employers more leverage in the health insurance market by allowing them to pool workers across companies to offer health benefits, similar to so-called association health plans, while placing the arrangements under state regulation to ensure financial stability and consumer protections.
The bill sought to establish a regulatory framework allowing groups of employers, often through trade associations or chambers of commerce, to jointly offer health benefits to their workers.
The bill was raised and approved by the Insurance and Real Estate Committee by 9-4 vote before it was referred to the Appropriations Committee.
Monday, that committee convened to act on a six-page agenda that included 55 bills for consideration.
Ultimately, members voted against approving the bill, according to the CBIA. The final vote tally was not available.
The committee rejected the bill even though Gov. Ned Lamont had said previously that he would support it.
Chris DiPentima, president and CEO of the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, said legislators missed an opportunity to help small businesses.
“For years small businesses have asked for help as they face soaring healthcare costs amid the shrinking small group insurance market,” he said in a statement.
“This session, legislators had an opportunity to make a meaningful impact and send a message that they’re truly invested in small businesses and their employees.”
He accused some members of the committee of putting “politics in front of good policy” by failing to help small businesses.
“It is discouraging that the committee did not follow the Insurance Committee’s earlier lead and advance the proposal, despite the bill receiving bipartisan support,” he added.
DiPentima dismissed claims that such plans would offer lower-quality benefits, discriminate based on health status or pre-existing conditions, or be financially vulnerable.
“It has been shown time and again that these plans are well regulated, comply with all state and federal rules and mandates under the Affordable Care Act, and offer the same-level or better plans than the ACA market,” he said.
