HB 7183 would tighten oversight of long-term care insurance in Connecticut and require additional reporting and evaluation by state agencies. It directs the Insurance Department to study an alternative pool for policyholders with policies in force for more than 20 years, and it requires the department to hold a public hearing for any long-term care premium increase request above 10 percent, with advance notice to legislators and policyholders. The bill also requires insurers to warn consumers, before purchase, about the risk of future premium increases for long-term care policies issued, renewed, continued, or amended on or after January 1, 2026.
The bill further limits certain premium increases for older long-term care policies. For policies originally purchased on or before December 31, 1985, and where the policyholder is at least 80 years old or has already experienced at least a 400 percent cumulative premium increase, any new increase on or after January 1, 2026 may not exceed the most recent annual CPI-U increase. In addition, the Office of Policy and Management, working with the Insurance Commissioner and the Commissioner of Health Strategy through the Connecticut Partnership for Long-Term Care, must evaluate the state’s long-term care insurance market, identify best regulatory practices, and report recommendations to the legislature by February 1, 2026. The bill also updates the reporting and audit requirements for the Connecticut Partnership for Long-Term Care, including a biennial limited performance audit by the Auditors of Public Accounts.
The bill’s impact is to add new consumer-protection and oversight requirements to Connecticut’s long-term care insurance framework, while also expanding legislative review of premium-setting practices and the state partnership program. It affects insurers, fraternal benefit societies, hospital service corporations, medical service corporations, and health care centers that issue long-term care policies, as well as policyholders—especially older individuals with legacy policies facing large premium increases. It also amends General Statutes section 17b-254 and operates alongside existing rate-filing statutes in sections 38a-501 and 38a-528.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available votes is strongly favorable. The bill received unanimous support in the Government Oversight Committee and near-unanimous support in the Insurance Committee, passing 12-1 there. That pattern suggests broad agreement that long-term care insurance deserves closer scrutiny and stronger consumer protections, even if there was at least one dissenting view in the Insurance Committee.
The main points of contention appear to center on how far the state should go in regulating premium increases and whether the new cap for certain older policies is the right approach. Potential concerns include the effect of the CPI-based limit on insurers’ ability to manage long-term claims costs, the administrative burden of mandatory hearings and notices, and the broader question of whether the state should intervene directly in pricing versus relying on existing rate-review processes. Supporters appear focused on protecting elderly policyholders and improving transparency, while any opposition likely reflects concern about market impacts and regulatory constraints.
The bill adds new statutory requirements governing long-term care insurance rate increases, consumer disclosures, state reporting, and oversight of the Connecticut Partnership for Long-Term Care. It creates a public-hearing process for premium increases above 10 percent, imposes advance notice obligations, requires pre-purchase warnings about future rate hikes, and limits certain increases for very old policies and older policyholders. It also amends section 17b-254 to expand annual reporting and require a limited performance audit of the partnership program, while directing state agencies to study and report on long-term care insurance regulation and possible reforms.
The available voting history indicates broad bipartisan support for the bill. It passed the Government Oversight Committee unanimously and the Insurance Committee with only one dissenting vote, suggesting general agreement that long-term care insurance needs closer oversight and stronger consumer protections. The absence of transcript debate limits insight into detailed arguments, but the vote pattern points to a favorable overall sentiment with some concern about the scope of regulation.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s restrictions on premium increases and the new procedural requirements imposed on insurers. Insurers and others in the industry may view the CPI-based cap for certain legacy policies, the mandatory public hearing for increases over 10 percent, and the advance notice requirements as burdensome or as interfering with actuarial pricing. Supporters, by contrast, appear to prioritize protecting long-term care policyholders—especially older consumers facing steep premium hikes—and increasing transparency and legislative oversight. The single no vote in the Insurance Committee suggests at least some concern about the balance between consumer protection and insurer flexibility.