Aging Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-6552
AN ACT CONCERNING THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS IN LONG-TERM CARE
FACILITIES TO USE THE TECHNOLOGY OF THEIR CHOICE FOR VIRTUAL
Title: CONNECTIONS TO FAMILY, FRIENDS AND OTHER PERSONS.
Vote Date: 3/11/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/9/2021
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Aging Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
An increased use of technology can improve resident safety in a long-term care facility, as
well as providing better opportunities for a resident to maintain closer contact with their family
members, friends and care giving team. The pandemic highlighted that the lack of resident
technology caused isolation for many long-term care residents which resulted in an overall
decline in their wellbeing. Additionally, not being able to visit either in person or virtually
caused family members and friends a great deal of concern. Also, the use of technology by
residents can increase the timelier response from long-term care employees should there be
a medical emergency. The bill allows residents of long-term care facilities to use technology
of their own choice and authorizes the Long-Term care ombudsman to develop forms and
notices in consultations with the Dept. of Public Health.
The JFS language removes duplicative language requiring residents to prove their
technology doesnt violate fire and safety codes as nursing homes are given responsibility to
determine same lower in bill; also removes facilitys right to shut off internet access in an
emergency and when internet disrupted to just when internet disrupted as testimony was that
such equipment might be most needed in an emergency to let family know residents are
okay. JFS language also changes subsections (b) and (f) to require a resident to cease
using technology for virtual monitoring if a roommate withdraws consent and requires
resident to inform facility in writing on forms prescribed by Long-Term Care Ombudsman of
withdrawn consent.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Senator Paul Formica, Connecticut General Assembly: His testimony was in support of
this legislation in that it would improve access to virtual connections between long-term care
facilities residents and their family members.
Senator Cathy Osten, Connecticut General Assembly: She is in support of this proposal
indicating that the bill is critical to improving the lives of residents of long-term care facilities
as we continue to fight the pandemic.
Rep. Kathleen McCarty, Connecticut General Assembly: She offered testimony in support
of this proposal. The pandemic highlighted the need for the use of technology in long-term
care facilities by residents and their families. Many residents were cut off from family and
friends which resulted in increased isolation, loneliness and depression during this difficult
time.
Mairead Painter, Commissioner, State Long-Term Care Ombudsman: She supports this
bill and has been asked to offer this support on behalf of the Executive Board of Presidents of
Resident Councils as well as individual Presidents of Resident Councils. For years they have
told resident in long-term care communities that their room is their home and they believe that
residents should have access to any and all technology that they feel best supports the
quality of life in their home. They also believe that the use of such technology shall not violate
a resident's right to privacy.
Dept. of Social Services: They indicate that they are in support of the proposal in concept
but would like to clarify language as providers currently have the ability to report costs
associated with internet upgrades and capital improvement on their annual cost report for
reimbursement under Medicaid. (in section (c) (1)).
Dept. of Public Health: They indicate that they strongly support any language that facilitates
communication between the resident and their representatives and family members. As we
have learned during the pandemic with visitation is restricted virtual communication with
family and friends is crucial to the well-being of the resident. They also point out that for
electronic monitoring of residents in the long-term care setting, there are federal conditions
that pertain to the nursing home setting. Federal Regs. state that a nursing home resident
has the right to personal privacy of not only their own physical body, but their own personal
space including accommodations and personal care.
Michael Werner, Attorney, Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity and
Opportunity: They offered testimony in support of this bill. The recent pandemic has shown
that the enforced isolation of seniors and the disabled has led to an epidemic of "failure to
thrive" among this population. The bill addresses potential privacy concerns among staff,
other residents and impacted roommates by providing for constructive notice mechanisms.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Mag Morelli, President, LeadingAge Connecticut: Their testimony is in support of this
proposal, but they offer concerns and comments on it. They have provided extensive
comments with the intent of assisting in the development of a statute that addresses the
Page 2 of 4 HB-6552
many complex needs and concerns of ensuring resident rights within this highly regulated
setting and in consideration of the situation that impact many nursing home residents. They
point out that the bill lacks safe guards to protect patient privacy. Other states have laws
governing electronic monitoring and they offer what they believe to be good public policy.
They think the bill burdens facilities with additional operating costs, and they believe that it be
reimbursed in full through an increase in Medicaid rates. They also feel that the technology
when used for monitoring residents should require notification and consent of the resident
and finally, they feel the managed residential community (MRC) be removed from the bill
since they are private residential settings.
Kathleen Flaherty, Executive Director, Connecticut Legal Rights Project, Inc.: They are
in support of this bill but have offered a suggestion that the committee amend the statutes
relating to the bill of rights for long-term care facility resident by reviewing the Patients' Bill of
Rights for psychiatric facilities.
Jean Mills Aranha, Attorney, Connecticut Legal Rights, Stamford: They are in support of
this proposal and feel it balances the right of a resident to communicate through technology
with the privacy rights of staff, roommates and other persons. It is thoughtfully crafted
proposal worthy of support.
Matt Barrett, President, Connecticut Assoc. of Health Care Facilities: They offered
comments and suggestions for this bill. It is recommended that the provision on line 13,
allowing a legally liable relative who is not a conservator, etc. to provide consent for the use
of the monitoring or visitation technology be also required to provide verification that the
resident was unable to provide consent and that these asserting be properly witnessed by
impartial parties. They also feel that the cost of providing internet access, electricity and
power source for the monitoring or visitation technology at no cost to a resident be clarified to
show a pass-through cost reimbursement add-on for any costs. Finally, for situation where
roommates refuse to consent to the use of virtual monitoring that lines 105 116 be revised
to assure that any efforts required of the facility to seek an acceptable accommodation be
unbiased and respectful of the non-consenting roommate and the resident seeking the virtual
monitoring.
Brian Cantor, Attorney, Connecticut Bar Assoc.: They offered their comments in support
of this bill. He suggests that the bill has the correct balance with privacy rights of the
residents and their roommates and who is responsible for paying for any extra expenses for
internet connectivity. He did express some concerns about the impact on the long-term care
facility employees and the increased scrutiny from residents loved ones about living
conditions and level of care, but he believes that the long-term results will be helpful.
AARP Connecticut: They offered testimony in favor of this proposal with suggestions and
comments. In Section 1(b) they recommend removing "intended use" from the bill. Section
1(b)(6)(B) required residents to verify that the technology complies with the state and federal
life, safety and fire codes. They believe this to be an unnecessary barrier. Section 1(c)(2)
would allow the facilities to establish policies and procedures on the use of technology and
they are concerned that the resulting policies could be so restrictive as to make it impossible
for resident to use the technology. In Section 1(c) lines 125 and 128 they recommend adding
"or the residents' representative" following each mention of "the resident". And finally, adding
Page 3 of 4 HB-6552
language to allow residents access to recourse if a nursing home does not permit them to
install technology as permitted by this legislation.
Nancy Randall, Norwich: She offered testimony in support of this bill Her comments are
based on her families experience over the last year with her 98-year-old father and the
distress caused by the pandemic on their whole family.
Kathy Null, AARP CT Volunteer: She supports this proposal and the fact that it provides
detailed responsibility requirements for both the resident and the facility to protect the privacy
for all. For families and friends who do get the virtual monitoring, it will give them a sense of
relief to see their loved ones.
Valerie Marcella, Niantic: She supports this bill and feels that the use of technology can
reduce and possibly prevent abuse and or neglect. She recounted her own experiences with
her grandmother and her own situation and believes that this bill would make her and others
more comfortable.
Patricia Lang, Newington: She offered testimony in support of this legislation.
Stacy Altomari, Waterbury: She submitted testimony in favor of this bill and testifies on
behalf of her mother's safety and sake. Since the pandemic and its restrictions her mother
went from using a walker and visiting weekly with one of her 5 children to only sitting in a
wheelchair or sleeping most of the time. Sen went from eating and socializing and being
playful to sleeping most of the time. She does not understand how her mother has less rights
than a prisoner.
Tina Grant, e-mail testimony submitted 3/5/21: Her testimony was in support of this bill.
She offered her comments and her experiences with her mother situation in her nursing
facility. She understands the concerns about privacy, but the care of each resident must be a
top priority and indicates that if they did not have a camera installed with her mother, they
would have never known how long our she was on the floor of her room.
Elizabeth Stern, Stonington: She offered testimony in support of this legislation saying that
this is not a new issue and it has been studied thoroughly in 14 other states.
Sharon Echtman, e-mail testimony submitted 3/9/21: She is in support of this proposal
and that her husband regressed rapidly after the pandemic began.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
No testimony in opposition submitted.
Reported by: Richard Ferrari, Assistant Clerk Date: 3/25/2021
Richard ONeil, Assistant Clerk
Joe Perkus, Clerk
Page 4 of 4 HB-6552