Connecticut 2026 Session Status: Passed Senate 9 D cosponsors

SB 342 — AN ACT CONCERNING HEALTH COVERAGE.

Last action — HOUSE CALENDAR NUMBER 575

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed House
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has passed the Senate. Introduced February 26, 2026. It now moves to the second chamber.

Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the House.

Prognosis

Advancing 38% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Passed Senate

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 10 sponsors

    10 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (9 D).

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

1 added · 0 removed

Plain-language change summary

The updated version of Bill SB 342 now includes a notation indicating that it received a favorable recommendation from a joint committee, known as the JUD. This addition shows that the bill has gained support and moves forward in the legislative process, which is a positive step towards becoming law. It highlights the committee's endorsement, suggesting that the bill addresses important issues and has broad backing among lawmakers.

→
Previous
Latest
9 October 1, 2026 38a-544(a) INS Joint Favorable APP Joint Favorable LCO 2248 9 of 9
9 October 1, 2026 38a-544(a) INS Joint Favorable APP Joint Favorable JUD Joint Favorable LCO 2248 9 of 9
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (5)

How this bill changes current law

5 changes Share ↗

AI-generated reading aid from the bill's amendatory text — verify against the official bill.

The bill introduces new requirements for insurers and health care providers regarding reimbursement practices and utilization review processes.

  • Section 1

    Each insurer, health care center, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, preferred provider network or other entity that enters into, renews or amends a contract with a health care provider on or after July 1, 2026, to provide covered benefits to insureds or enrollees in this state shall include in such contract: (1) A provision requiring such insurer, health care center, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, preferred provider network or other entity to: (A) Reimburse the contracting health care provider for a covered outpatient benefit that uses a current procedural terminology evaluation and management (CPT E/M) code, current procedural terminology assessment and management (CPT A/M) code, telehealth codes or drug infusion code in an amount that does not vary based on the facility where the contracting health care provider provides such benefit; and (B) Use equal reimbursement rates for all contracting health care providers in the same geographic region, as determined by the Insurance Commissioner and regardless of the employer or affiliation of any contracting healthcare provider, for each covered outpatient benefit described in subparagraph (A) of this subdivision if the reimbursement for such covered outpatient benefit is made on a fee-for-benefit basis or on the basis of bundled benefits per diagnosis, condition, procedure or another standardized bundle of health care benefits; and (2) A conspicuous statement that such contract complies with the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection.

    Insurers must standardize reimbursement rates and practices for outpatient benefits in contracts with providers.

  • Section 2

    (2) "Anti-steering clause" means any provision, including, but not limited to, utilization management provisions, in a health care contract that restricts the ability of the health carrier or health plan administrator from encouraging an enrollee to obtain a health care service from a competitor of a hospital or health system, including offering incentives to encourage enrollees to utilize specific health care providers such as centers of excellence or any other pay-for-performance program; → (2) "Anti-steering clause" means any provision, including, but not limited to, utilization management provisions, in a health care contract that restricts the ability of the health carrier or health plan administrator from encouraging an enrollee to obtain a health care service from a competitor of a hospital or health system, including offering incentives to encourage enrollees to utilize specific health care providers.

    Clarifies the definition of an anti-steering clause by removing redundant language.

  • Section 5

    for a period of sixty days from the date of termination or, in the case of a nonrenewal, from the end of the contract period. Except as otherwise agreed between such health carrier and such participating provider, the reimbursement terms of any contract entered into by such health carrier and such participating provider during said sixty-day period shall be retroactive to the date of termination or, in the case of a nonrenewal, the end date of the contract period. This subparagraph shall not apply if the health carrier and participating provider agree, in writing, to the termination or nonrenewal of the contract and the health carrier and participating provider provide the notices required under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this subdivision → until the earlier of the date the dispute is resolved or the policyholder's renewal date.

    Changes the duration for which contract terms remain effective after termination or nonrenewal from a fixed sixty days to until a dispute is resolved or the policyholder's renewal.

  • Section 6

    (D) For each utilization review of a health care service ordered by a provider in the highest tier or level of the health carrier's tiered network, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such health care service under review is medically necessary if such service was ordered by a provider in the highest tier or level of a health carrier's tiered network acting within such provider's scope of practice. A health carrier, or any utilization review company or designee of a health carrier that performs utilization review on behalf of the health carrier, shall have the burden of proving that a health care service ordered by a provider in the highest tier or level of such health carrier's tiered network is not medically necessary.

    Establishes a presumption of medical necessity for services ordered by high-tier providers during utilization reviews.

  • Section 8

    may: (1) Require any person covered under such policy or contract to obtain prescription drugs from a mail order pharmacy as a condition of obtaining

    Removes a restriction preventing insurers from mandating mail order pharmacies for prescription drug coverage.

Action History

  1. HOUSE CALENDAR NUMBER 575

  2. FAV. RPT., TABLED FOR HOUSE CALENDAR

  3. TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO JOINT RULE 17

  4. SEN. PASSED, SEN. AMEND. SCH. A,B

  5. SEN. ADOPTED SEN. AMEND. SCH. B

  6. FAV. RPT., TAB. FOR CAL., SEN.

  7. NO NEW FILE BY COMM. ON Judiciary

  8. RPTD. OUT OF LCO

  9. FILED WITH LCO

  10. Joint Favorable

  11. IMMEDIATE TRANSMITTAL TO COMMITTEE

  12. REF. BY SEN. TO COMM. ON Judiciary

  13. FAV. RPT., TAB. FOR CAL., SEN.

  14. NO NEW FILE BY COMM. ON Appropriations

  15. RPTD. OUT OF LCO

  16. FILED WITH LCO

  17. Joint Favorable

  18. IMMEDIATE TRANSMITTAL TO COMMITTEE

  19. REF. BY SEN. TO COMM. ON Appropriations

  20. SEN. ADOPTED SEN. AMEND. SCH. A

  21. FILE NO. 223

  22. SENATE CALENDAR NUMBER 178

  23. FAV. RPT., TAB. FOR CAL., SEN.

  24. RPTD. OUT OF LCO

  25. REFERRED TO Office of Legislative Research AND Office of Fiscal Analysis 03/30/26

  26. FILED WITH LCO

  27. Joint Favorable

  28. PUBLIC HEARING 0303

  29. REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Insurance and Real Estate

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

10 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 177 not signed on

Sponsors (10)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (177)

177 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 177 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

healthcare health-insurance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

Who sponsors SB 342?
SB 342 is sponsored by Morrin Bello, Julie Kushner (Democratic), Patricia Billie Miller (Democratic), Joan V. Hartley (Democratic), Josh Elliott (Democratic), MD Rahman (Democratic), Nick Gauthier (Democratic), Martha Marx (Democratic), Saud Anwar (Democratic), and Martin M. Looney (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 342?
This bill has passed the Senate. Introduced February 26, 2026. It now moves to the second chamber.
Where can I track SB 342?
Track SB 342 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 342

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 342

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →