An Act Increasing The Rates For The Birth-to-three Program.
Summary
HB 5326 is an early childhood education and disability-services bill that updates the state’s Birth-to-Three program rate-setting framework. It requires the lead agency to establish statewide rates for early intervention services that align with the rates posted by the Office of Early Childhood, and it directs the Office of Early Childhood to publish the rates from the most recent comprehensive rate study and cost analysis on its website. The bill is effective in part on passage and in part July 1, 2026.
In practical terms, the measure ties provider reimbursement for Birth-to-Three services more closely to the state’s most recent cost analysis, rather than leaving rates less explicitly connected to that study. It amends the statute governing early intervention services for eligible children and their families, and it reinforces the state’s oversight and accountability role for providers under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act framework.
Impact
The bill amends Connecticut General Statutes section 17a-248e(d) and adds a new requirement for the Office of Early Childhood to publicly post the rate schedule from the latest comprehensive Birth-to-Three rate study and cost analysis. It also requires the lead agency to set statewide rates consistent with those posted rates, which may affect reimbursement levels for participating agencies and contracted providers delivering early intervention services to eligible infants and toddlers and their families.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. The Education Committee reported a strong favorable substitute vote of 42 yeas and 2 nays, indicating that most members viewed the proposal positively. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate significant opposition in the materials supplied.
Contention
The main policy issue implied by the bill is funding adequacy and rate adequacy for Birth-to-Three providers: supporters appear to favor increasing or updating rates to reflect the most recent cost study, while any dissent likely concerns fiscal impact, implementation, or whether the new posted rates should be binding on the lead agency. Because no transcript discussion is available, the specific objections of the two opposing votes are not identified in the record provided.