New Rights for CT Amputees: PA 18-69

This is a one-page, two-sided handout produced by CAN. First, it contains information about amputees’ new rights under State of Connecticut Public Act 18-69, which went into effect January 1, 2019. The second page has information about Amputee Peer Visitors, Connecticut State agencies that protect patients’ rights regarding insurance claims and denials, information on how to respond to a medical insurance claim denial, and a URL to the text of PA18-69.

These documents are copyright protected and provided for use under the doctrine of Fair Use. (For a detailed description of usage rights under the Fair Use Doctrine, see the U.S. government’s description of Fair Use.) Unlicensed reproduction is permitted only for noncommercial use. The word “copyright” or copyright symbol, year published (if available) and name “Connecticut Amputee Network” (e.g., ©2017 Connecticut Amputee Network) must be included and visible on all reproductions.

Legislative Advocacy Tools

Following are documents that CAN produced in 2017-2018 to support passage of SB376, now PA 18-69, which protects health insurance coverage for prosthetics in the State of Connecticut. There remain 29 U.S. states that have not yet passed similar legislation, and these documents are provided as tools to help others get prosthetic parity laws passed.

Overview: The Case for SB-376

The Business Case

Recent research (studies published in 2013, 2017) demonstrate the cost savings of providing prompt, appropriate prosthetic care to amputees. The following documents summarize key points of the economic/business case for health insurance coverage of prosthetics.

The Civil Rights Case

Arms and Limbs Are Not Luxuries! Prosthetic limbs are not “durable medical equipment”—they are integral parts of our bodies. To deny a medical insurance claim for a prosthetic limb is to discriminate against people with disabilities. The following document, created by CAN, outlines key points of the argument for protection of medical insurance coverage for replacement limbs.

The Common Sense Case

While meeting with individual legislators during the year and a half we worked to support passage of this law, we heard an almost universal response when they learned of the level of coverage common at the time: “What? They aren’t covered?!” That outrage exemplifies what we call the “Common Sense” case. Arms and legs are not luxuries. It just makes sense to restore functionality to a person who has lost a limb, to help them return to a life as much as possible like what they had before.

Advertisements