Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Wind turbines may be one of the best renewable energy solutions, but as turbines get larger they also get noisier, become more of an eyesore, and require increasingly larger expanses of land. One solution: ocean-based wind turbines. While offshore turbines already have been constructed, they’ve traditionally been situated in shallow waters, where the tower extends directly into the seabed. That restricts the turbines to near-shore waters with depths no greater than 50 meters — and precludes their use in deeper waters, where winds generally gust at higher speeds.

An alternative is placing turbines on floating platforms, says naval architect Dominique Roddier of Berkeley, California-based Marine Innovation & Technology. He and his and colleagues have published a feasibility study of one platform design — dubbed “WindFloat” — in the latest issue of the Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, which is published by the American Institute of Physics (AIP).

By testing a 1:65 scale model in a wave tank, the researchers show that the three-legged floating platform, which is based on existing gas and oil offshore platform designs, is stable enough to support a 5-megawatt wind turbine, the largest turbine that currently exists. These mammoth turbines are 70 meters tall and have rotors the size of a football field. Just one, Roddier says, produces enough energy “to support a small town.”

The next step, says Roddier, is building a prototype to understand the life-cycle cost of such projects and to refine the economics models. The prototype, which is being built in collaboration with electricity operator Energias de Portugal, “should be in the water by the end of summer 2012,” he says.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Good evening my name is Steve Schrag and I am a co-chair of the Connecticut Council on Occupational Safety and Health (ConnectiCOSH). We want the families and friends of those who were killed at the Kleen power plant explosion to know that we will keep them in our prayers.

ConnectiCOSH is a labor-based coalition that advocates for worker health and safety. We helped to pass the Connecticut state Right to Know and Right to Act laws and stronger whistleblower protections for workers dealing with hazards on the job.

The Kleen Energy gas plant explosion raises many issues of concern to us. It is part of the daily toll of 16 workers who do not come home to their families due to death on the job. This is unacceptable.

We appreciate the role that the Chemical Safety Board plays in conducting root cause investigations of chemical accidents at fixed industrial facilities. The CSB root cause analysis will yield valuable information that can lead to the prevention of this unnecessary tragedy from occurring again.

(When conducting a root cause analysis the focus is not just on what happened or how it happened, but determining the underlying causes. There are four stages to root cause analysis; data collection, casual factor charting, root cause identified and recommendations.)

After reviewing the preliminary analysis of the Middletown explosion there are couple of points that strike us as important.

The first point is that there was no safety meeting held on the day of the incident to specifically discuss the hazards of natural gas blows. Ongoing training and communication with workers is crucial to ensuring that proper procedures are followed. There is always pressure to increase worker productivity and the only way that worker safety is part of the calculation, is when workers are regularly informed by supervisors about the “safe way” to do the job. This sends a signal that the supervisor expects them to do the job safe, not just quick.

The second point that concerns us was that inconsistent instructions were issued with some contractors continuing to work inside the generation building during the natural gas blow. If all of the workers involved with those activities had been properly notified that a gas blow was being conducted, they would have been evacuated and the activity discontinued. It is crucial that there be a line of authority regarding what activity should happen during potentially dangerous operations. Clear procedures issued by those with authority lead to safer workplaces.

I coordinate the SEIU Eastern Region Hazmat program and work to establish training and education in workplaces. Training is essential to help workers understand the seriousness of the hazards that they face. However, it is not possible to reduce their exposure to health and safety risks through training alone.

Years ago I worked with one of our bargaining units who represented highway workers. They used airguns to blow out brake linings during brake jobs on trucks. This created airborne asbestos which put everyone in the garage at risk. We were told that they did this job this way for 25 years and would not change their operations easily. We conducted workshops which brought info to their attention about the damage to their health, but we also described a tool that could protect them while doing their work. We were successful in convincing management to buy these tools and after their introduction into the workplace, supervisors and frontline workers self-policed to make sure everyone used it properly. Information helped, but alone it was not enough, proper tools and clear procedures were just as important.

Given that there have been seven other similar gas explosions since 1997, one solution to this hazardous operation is to establish a federal regulation requiring a “system of safety” type standard. This should be modeled on the process safety management regulation. The components of this regulation could include; employee participation, hazard analysis, operating procedures, training, dealing with contractors, pre-start up safety review, mechanical integrity, hotwork permit, management of change, incident investigation, emergency planning and response and compliance audits. This type of comprehensive approach could alleviate the “holes” that caused the Kleen Energy explosion.
ConnectiCOSH has worked for requirements that encourage use of safer cleaning chemicals and substitution of safer chemicals in other work process and we advocate that a requirement that employers look for and use safer technologies and materials is another means of reducing gas blow dangers.

However whatever regulatory changes that are made will not be as useful unless there is accountability to comply with them. There needs to be a mechanism to ensure that the corporate officials at the highest level make health and safety a priority. Currently the federal law, Sarbanes-Oxley, requires that CEOs take personal responsibility for all accounting and audit documents. A workplace environmental version could require that CEOs to sign off and take personal responsibility for adequate safety and health programs.

Another proposal is to require hazard monitoring be conducted by an independent industrial hygienist or safety personnel on site, like a Fire Marshall or other non-employee of the responsible corporation, in order to reduce potential conflict of interest problems.

And finally, for those corporations who have a track record of non-compliance with health and safety regulations, eligibility for tax breaks, contracts or other public resources should be prohibited. We should not reward bad behavior with public money, we need a corporate ethics regulation.

Unfortunately history shows that workers do not get protections from hazards until there are deaths; the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire, Gaulley Bridge silica exposure and Farmington West Virginia mine collapse. We intend to make sure that these workers that died in Middletown did not die in vane, and we will organize until serious and substantial change to protect workers from hazards on the job is enacted. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Initiatives will keep domestic violence shelters open around the clock, establish electronic monitoring program for offenders and require prevention training for educators

New state laws approved by the General Assembly that assist victims of domestic violence, crackdown on offenders and increase public awareness of the epidemic take effect this week.

Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Senator Joe Crisco (D-Woodbridge), Senator Toni Harp (D-New Haven), Senator Ed Meyer (D-Guilford), Representative Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) and Representative Patricia Widlitz (D-Guilford) held a news conference with Sandra Koorejian, executive director of Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, to detail what changes are about to take place and how they will impact victims and offenders.

The General Assembly and Governor M. Jodi Rell approved a package of domestic violence-related bills and initiatives during the 2010 legislative session – some of which take effect on July 1.

The budget includes $1.75 million to allow Connecticut’s 18 domestic violence shelters to stay open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The state funding will help leverage $1 million in federal funding for the shelters.

Public Act 10-91 requires local and regional school boards – as part of the in-service training they must offer to certified employees – to include information on preventing teen dating violence and domestic violence.

Public Act 10-144 allows the Judicial Branch to establish a pilot program for electronic monitoring of family violence offenders, and requires the chief court administrator to apply for federal grants to fund the program.

“The fight against domestic violence is one that we all have a stake in,” Senator Looney said. “The epidemic affects thousands of women and children in Connecticut every year – and the recession has only exacerbated the problem. The new state initiatives will make a real difference and they starts with one basic assurance – no victim who shows up at a shelter looking for help will be turned away because the lights are out and the doors are locked.”

“We applaud the support of the General Assembly on these bills, and especially the work of the Connecticut Domestic Violence Task Force,” Ms. Koorejian said. “We are thrilled that these bills provide additional safety strategies and resources for victims as well as educational programs that can help reduce or prevent incidents of abuse.”

“In calendar year 2009, Domestic Violence Services (DVS) assisted over 7,600 victims on the hotline, in the shelter, in the courts and in group and individual counseling programs,” she continued. “We also provided education and prevention programs for over 5,400 professionals, students and interested citizens. In the last six months of 2009, DVS sheltered over twice the number of women and children as compared to the same period in 2008. The DVS shelter doesn’t have 24/7 on-site staffing. With the explosion in demand for shelter, we are so overextended that we look forward to the new funding that will enable us to have advocates on-site and available to the women and children anytime during the day or night.”

“The tragic circumstances surrounding any domestic violence incident are self-evident, with the potential to be instantly and dramatically compounded once extended family members, friends, and neighbors become aware of its presence and true nature,” Senator Crisco said. “In this manner the number of those who become victimized in each case rises exponentially, adding to the sense of urgency we felt to pass these laws this year.”

“The insidious nature of most domestic violence cases, in which family members maintain an outward appearance of normalcy and civility despite deep currents of unrest, demands the proactive, comprehensive approach we enacted this year,” Senator Harp said. “With these new laws it is our intention to reduce the number of domestic violence cases in Connecticut and help protect potential victims in three critical areas: crisis response and social services, education and prevention, and in law enforcement and judicial proceedings.”

“Domestic violence is still very much a crime that is cloaked in shame and secrecy. Social and financial pressures have a great influence on the reporting and disposition of domestic violence incidents,” Senator Meyer said. “Increased state funding for around-the-clock shelters, a tougher look at prior misconduct and electronic monitoring will give greater peace of mind to women and men everywhere. It lets them know that we take these crimes and their safety very seriously.”

“These changes in the law are much needed,” said Rep. Lawlor, who is co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “The good news is that attitudes throughout the criminal justice system are changing and frontline professionals understand the urgency of preventing tragedy.”

“It is important that we implement these changes so that we can move our state forward in addressing these horrific crimes, recognizing that they have wide-ranging impacts on all aspects of people’s lives,” Rep. Widlitz said. “I’m proud that the legislature acted to approve these changes, standing in support of victims and enhancing the tools available for frontline professionals in our state.’’

Other domestic violence initiatives that will take effect on October 1, 2010 include:

· Public Act 10-137 makes it easier for tenants who are victims of family violence to leave their dwellings. It allows the tenants to terminate their rental agreements and not be penalized for doing so if they give the landlord at least 30 days notice.

· Public Act 10-144 expands the persistent offender law for crimes involving assault, trespass, threatening, harassment and violation of a restraining or protective order by eliminating the limitation on the ‘look-back period’ and allowing the court to consider convictions for essentially the same crimes in other states.

Public Act 10-144 also requires employers to allow family violence victims to take paid or unpaid leave (including compensatory time, vacation time, personal days or other time off) during any calendar year in which the leave is reasonably necessary to:

- Seek medical care or counseling for physical or psychological injury or disability
- Obtain services from a victim services organization
- Relocate due to the family violence
- Participate in any civil or criminal proceeding related to or resulting from such family violence

According to the state Department of Public Safety, in 2008 there were over 20,000 incidents of domestic violence that resulted in arrest. Statistics show that women represent the vast majority of victims, but children are also affected. National reports indicate that 40% to 60% of men who abuse women also abuse their children, and fathers who batter are twice as likely as non-abusive fathers to seek sole custody of their children.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Lamont Releases Plan to Get Connecticut Moving Again

As Connecticut families prepare to grapple with holiday travel this weekend, Democratic candidate for governor Ned Lamont unveiled his plan to ease traffic congestion, expand transit options, and repair our crumbling infrastructure. With a focus on public-private partnerships and securing federal funds for transit projects, Lamont’s “Plan to Get Connecticut Moving Again” lays out his long-term vision for fixing transportation in our state without substantial cost to Connecticut families.

“The traffic jams that most Americans only experience on holiday weekends are an everyday nightmare for Connecticut commuters and their families,” said Lamont. “By improving rail service, giving commuters more options for how to get to work, and repairing our state’s crumbling transportation infrastructure, we can create jobs and encourage businesses and families to settle here in the state. As governor I will take charge and put Connecticut back on the path to smart, long-term growth, starting with transportation.”

Lamont’s plan enjoys support from transportation leaders across Connecticut.

“This is the most promising urban and transportation agenda I have seen from a gubernatorial candidate in over twenty years in Connecticut. It moves beyond platitudes and details specific ideas that, if implemented, could transform Connecticut – putting us on the road to compete with cutting-edge American cities like Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington,” said Professor Norman Garrick, the Director of UCONN’s Center for Transportation and Urban Planning.

“Ned Lamont has a thoughtful transportation plan that addresses our infrastructure needs and puts Connecticut workers back to work immediately. Ned is the only candidate running for governor that will partner with unions and others to achieve the goal of building a better Connecticut,” said Charles LeConche, the business manager of the Connecticut Laborers’ District Council

As governor, Lamont will:

• Reestablish frequent rail service from New Haven through Hartford to Springfield.
• Run Metro North trains into Penn Station so commuter rail from Stamford to Newark doesn’t entail lugging bags on four different trains.
• Equip train cars with Wi-Fi, so travelers can stay connected and productive.
• Upgrade the Waterbury branch and increase frequency of trains to Derby, Naugatuck, Waterbury, and other points on the line, bringing opportunity and jobs.
• Repair our aging bridges and highways, so we can travel safely and quickly across the state. Projects like the I-84 Aetna Viaduct in Hartford will support thousands of jobs.
• Work with major employers to bring international flights back to Bradley Airport, opening our state up to international travel and commerce.
• Institute a “smart card” system so riders can switch from bus to rail more easily, integrating Connecticut’s transit networks.
• Make Connecticut more bike-friendly, giving people a healthier, greener commuting option.
• Work with other governors to create a Northeast Transportation Authority, stretching from Washington to Maine, with responsibility for road, rail, ports, and airports.

Lamont’s transportation plan ties in with the strategies he has put forth to create jobs and renew our cities, goals that will benefit from a modernized transportation system that centers on making our cities back into transportation hubs.

Comments(4)

|

E-mail

|

Print

American Academy of Dermatology Association Urges States to Move Forward with Indoor Tanning Restrictions

As the scientific evidence mounts, more federal agencies and state governments are taking action to educate and protect Americans against the serious risks of indoor tanning. Recent and pending legislation in numerous states restricting access to indoor tanning, along with the federal 10 percent indoor tanning tax that goes into effect on July 1, are important steps in keeping Americans safe from overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation and the potential for future skin cancers. Indoor tanning is associated with a 75 percent increase in the risk of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. Melanoma is increasing faster in young women (15-29 years old) than in young men in the same age group – and a major difference in behavior is that women are more likely to use indoor tanning beds.

“These national and state-wide efforts send a clear message to Americans, especially young people, that tanning is not safe and that a tan is not a sign of good health,” said dermatologist William D. James, MD, FAAD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA). “Indoor tanning is an unhealthy activity and UV radiation exposure increases one’s risk of skin cancer.”

More than 1 million new cases of skin cancer will be diagnosed in the United States this year. Since 2002, the United States Department of Health and Human Services has stated that UV radiation from the sun and artificial sources, such as tanning beds and sun lamps, is a known human carcinogen. In 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization, re-categorized indoor tanning devices as carcinogenic to humans, placing indoor tanning in the highest risk category with tobacco smoke. Yet, nearly 30 million people tan indoors in the United States annually. Of these, 2.3 million are teens.

Despite the call from the World Health Organization (WHO) to prohibit minors from indoor tanning because of the danger of skin cancer, currently only 32 states restrict access to indoor tanning beds by minors. Texas has the most restrictive state law, prohibiting those under 16.5 from using tanning beds. For minors in Georgia, a new law goes into effect on July 1 that prohibits those under the age of 14 from using indoor tanning facilities and requires those between the ages of 14 and 18 to have in-person parental consent before use.

“People need to be aware that using a tanning bed is dangerous,” said dermatologist Alexander S. Gross, MD, FAAD, attending physician at Emory University and the Medical College of Georgia, and incoming chair of the Georgia Composite Medical Board, who worked with the AADA to support passage of this law. “Now, Georgia state law requires indoor tanning bed operators to inform their clients, potential clients and parents about the dangers of tanning, and also prevents children under the age of 14 from using indoor tanning beds, which we hope will deter our young people from future indoor tanning use.”

In Massachusetts, a bill awaiting approval by the State House of Representatives would prohibit the use of indoor tanning devices for all minors under the age of 16 and would require in-person parental consent for those ages 16 and 17. If passed in the House and signed by Governor Deval Patrick, the legislation would go into effect by the end of summer.

“The AADA urges the state of Massachusetts to pass this legislation, which would be the second most restrictive indoor tanning law in the nation, behind the state of Texas, and is in line with Wisconsin requirements banning minors under 16 from indoor tanning,” said Dr. James.

In addition, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania are considering legislation to restrict minors’ access to tanning beds.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering changes to the current classification of indoor tanning devices based on the recommendations of a scientific and medical community panel that convened in March. Currently, the FDA classifies indoor tanning devices as Class 1, the category for items that have minimal potential to cause harm to individuals. Items in Class 1 include adhesive bandages and tongue depressors.

“Dermatologists from the AADA and many other organizations, researchers, and patients urged the FDA to ban indoor tanning devices entirely, or at least to minors,” said Dr. James. “We also encouraged the FDA to shift the classification of indoor tanning to one that more closely matches the health risks of these devices and place additional regulations on these harmful devices.”

In addition, earlier this year the Federal Trade Commission – which is the federal government agency that works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices – issued a consent order that prohibits the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) from making false health and safety claims about indoor tanning. Under its settlement with the FTC, any future ITA ads that make safety or health benefits claims for indoor tanning may not be misleading, must be substantiated, and must clearly and prominently disclose that exposure to ultraviolet radiation may increase the risk of developing skin cancer.

“The AADA is hopeful that the actions at the federal and state levels will persuade individuals to stop indoor tanning altogether,” said Dr. James. “In addition, these efforts to discourage indoor tanning will help reduce the future costs of treating skin cancers, since $1.8 billion is spent each year on treating skin cancers in the United States, of which about $300 million is spent on melanomas alone. As a type of cancer that has a known environmental carcinogen, this is a highly preventable disease. Protecting oneself by using sunscreens, wearing sun protective clothing, seeking the shade, and avoiding intentional exposure to tanning devices or midday sun are simple ways everyone can reduce their chances of getting skin cancer.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

About 200 fireworks injuries a day during month surrounding the holiday

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) wants consumers to put safety in play if fireworks are part of your Fourth of July celebrations. A new CPSC study (pdf) indicates that in 2009 there were two deaths and nearly 9,000 emergency room visits for injuries resulting from fireworks related incidents. Most fireworks injuries occurred to consumers younger than 20 and resulted in the loss of a limb in many cases.

In a press event held on The National Mall, Chairman Inez Tenenbaum announced that during the 30 days surrounding last year’s Independence Day holiday, there were nearly 6,000 reports of injuries involving fireworks. Burns and lacerations to the hands, the face and the head were the most frequently reported injuries. More than half of the injuries during this time period were related to firecrackers, bottle rockets, and sparklers.

“Consumers need to heed our warning: fireworks related incidents, especially those involving illegal fireworks, can be fatal,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. “Only use legal fireworks and follow CPSC’s tips to ensure your holiday remains festive and safe.”

Chairman Tenenbaum was joined on The Mall by Chief Glenn Gaines, Acting Fire Administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Daniel Baldwin, Assistant Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); and Arthur Herbert, Assistant Director, Enforcement Programs and Services, for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Also joining CPSC on the Mall was Jason Henderson. Mr. Henderson lost both hands and sight in his right eye during a fireworks-related incident.

CPSC is working closely with our federal partners to enforce fireworks regulations, protect our ports, prosecute manufacturers and distributors of illegal explosives, and educate the public about the risks associated with fireworks.

“Fireworks not only create significant dangers to citizens when used improperly or illegally but also increases the demands on fire departments and firefighters,” said Acting U.S. Fire Administrator Glenn Gaines. “This nation has lost four firefighters as a result of the use of illegal fireworks. Calls to EMS and Fire departments increased as individuals continue to be injured and burned. Almost 9,000 people were injured last year as a result of civilian use of fireworks. With these increased demands the risks to firefighters and EMS personnel needlessly increase when fireworks play gets out of control.”

The federal government is committed to stopping the manufacture and sale of illegal fireworks.

“ATF is committed to protecting the public by finding and stopping those who endanger our communities by illegally making and selling explosives devices,” said ATF Assistant Director Arthur Herbert. “If you become aware of an illegal manufacturing operation, or see someone selling devices or fireworks illegally, report it immediately to your local law enforcement or to ATF at (888) 283-2662.”

Consumers who decide to purchase legal fireworks are encouraged to take the following safety steps:

Never allow young children to play with or ignite fireworks.
Make sure fireworks are legal in your area before buying or using them.
Avoid buying fireworks that come in brown paper packaging, as this can often be a sign that the fireworks were made for professional displays and could pose a danger to consumers.
Adults should always supervise fireworks activities. Parents often don’t realize that there are many injuries from sparklers to children under five. Sparklers burn at temperatures of about 2,000 degrees – hot enough to melt some metals.
Never have any portion of your body directly over a fireworks device when lighting the fuse. Move back to a safe distance immediately after lighting.
Never try to re-light or pick up fireworks that have not fully functioned.
Never point or throw fireworks at another person.
Keep a bucket of water or a garden hose handy in case of fire or other mishap.
Light one item at a time then move back quickly.
Never carry fireworks in a pocket or shoot them off in metal or glass containers.
After fireworks fully complete their functioning, douse the spent device with plenty of water from a bucket or hose before discarding to prevent a trash fire.
—

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC’s work to ensure the safety of consumer products – such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals – contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Representatives Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, John Larson, Chris Murphy and Jim Himes sent a letter to Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Thomas Sullivan today calling on his office to investigate exorbitant insurance rate increases requested by Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield (Anthem). Anthem recently withdrew its request for a 39-percent rate increase for plans it operates in California after that state’s regulators cited incorrect data and assumptions used and made by Anthem to justify its proposed rate increase.

Anthem made similar requests in Connecticut, and although the largest requests were rejected, increases of as much as 20 percent were approved. The letter requests that Sullivan’s office conduct an independent audit of Anthem’s request to ensure consumer fairness and protection. Such an audit was also recommended by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

A copy of the Members’ letter to Commissioner Sullivan is below.

“At this point, Anthem has an established record of using incorrect data in attempting to impose exorbitant rate increases in California,” said Congressman Courtney. “They tried to impose similar increases in Connecticut, and although their most blatant attempts were quashed, their entire methodology is suspect, and necessitates investigation.”

“I join with my colleagues to urge an independent review of Anthem’s rate increases, and to ensure that Connecticut residents are not subject to the same unfair accounting that California was,” said Congresswoman DeLauro. “The landmark health reform law we passed will force health insurance companies to compete, increasing the likelihood that consumers will be able to avoid unjustified rate increases — but in the meantime, we must act to prevent insurance companies like Anthem from taking advantage of our residents. It is essential that this review is conducted to determine if Anthem’s rate increases were fairly presented.”

“We must protect Connecticut consumers from unjustified rate increases and provide them with quality, affordable health care coverage,” said Congressman John B. Larson. “The Affordable Care Act was passed to shield families, small businesses, and individuals from these egregious practices. I hope Commissioner Sullivan, in accordance with Secretary Sebelius’ request, reviews Anthem’s approved rate increase to ensure our citizens are not unfairly burdened.”

“We have certainly learned through the health reform process that private health insurance companies have been overcharging their customers for years,” said Congressman Murphy. “We owe it to people to do everything we can to make sure that Connecticut customers are paying a fair, not inflated, rate for health insurance coverage.”

“For years insurance companies have been charging their customers too much and covering too little in return,” said Himes. “We need a fair and complete investigation into Anthem’s recent premium increases so we can crack down on any unscrupulous activity or attempts to justify unfair rate increases.”

——————–

The Honorable Thomas Sullivan, Commissioner
Connecticut Department of Insurance
153 Market Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06103

Dear Commissioner Sullivan,

As you are no doubt aware, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield (Anthem) in California recently withdrew its request for an astonishing 39 percent rate increase for plans it operates in the individual health insurance market after California regulators rejected the proposal. In rejecting the proposal, California’s regulators cited incorrect data and assumptions used and made by Anthem to justify the proposed rate increase.

Last summer, Anthem made a similar request to your office, asking that in some instances, rates be increased by as much as 32 percent on plans in the individual market. While your office did not approve Anthem’s most outlandish rate requests, you did approve rate increases of as much as 20 percent for these Anthem plans.

Last month, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, sent all states a letter urging them to review any rate increases they may have approved at the request of Anthem. In light of the information out of California, that incorrect data and assumptions were used and made by Anthem to justify their rate increases, we respectfully request that you follow the advice of the Secretary and review your August 2009 decision granting, what we believe to be exorbitant rate increases for Connecticut residents forced to buy their insurance in the non-competitive individual insurance market.

We would further request that you follow the recommendations outlined by the Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, and Connecticut State Healthcare Advocate, Kevin Lembo, to pursue an independent audit of Anthem’s premium rate increase, at Anthem’s expense. Like the independent audit in California, an independent audit of Anthem’s premium increase in Connecticut will provide critical oversight of potentially faulty data, including double counting of risk factors, used to calculate the premium increases that took effect for thousands of individuals in Connecticut this year. More importantly, an independent audit will ensure consumer fairness. Considering the depth of impact of Anthem’s premium increases, which affected thousands of individuals and families in Connecticut, an independent audit is the right course action to uphold consumer protection.

In 2014, when the health insurance marketplaces (Exchanges) begin to operate, forcing health insurance companies to compete for the business of individuals and small businesses, consumers will have a better chance of avoiding unjustified rate increases imposed by their health insurance company. In the meantime, it is imperative that you use all the tools at your disposal to prevent health insurance companies from increasing rates at an unjustifiable clip. Of additional note, new Health Insurance Premium Review Grants will be available this year to strengthen state consumer protection operations. We are aware that the state is in the process of applying for these grants and we would further offer our assistance with the application process so that consumers in Connecticut will be better protected from exorbitant insurance rate increases.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and your attention to this matter. We know that you share our concern for Connecticut residents who are facing the crushing burden of unjustified rate increases.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

One of the claims made by the Malloy campaign is simply untrue:

In his time as CEO Ned laid off most of his workforce, while paying himself hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It was completely debunked in the Hartford Courant as summarized by David Sirota below. The original lie was told by Joe Lieberman (remember him- and remember who did his media and now works for Malloy?)

Here’s Joe’s lie (which the Malloy campaign repeats):

And here’s the truth:

The Hartford Courant evaluated Lieberman’s ad claim and said Lieberman “plays loose with the facts.” The New York Times did not report that Ned Lamont laid off 68 percent of the people at his cable company. The Times actually reported that “The number of employees [at Lamont Digital Systems] dropped to about 40 today from a high of about 125″ – but it never said that drop was due to layoffs. Why? Because they weren’t due primarily to layoffs – not even close.

After 9/11 when many businesses were struggling, Lamont’s company was forced to sell some of its systems to other companies. While the total employment at Lamont Digital Systems declined, many of the jobs were simply moved to other companies, not eliminated. Specifically, less than one third of LDS’s employment shift cited in Lieberman’s ads were layoffs in the wake of 9/11. The majority of the other two thirds that left LDS left voluntarily (aka. for a new job, etc.).

The New York Times’ reporting that LDS employed 125 people is factually inaccurate. LDS’s peak employment came in April of 2002 with 95 employees – not 125. Company records show Ned Lamont’s average salary since the time in question after 9/11 was $188,000 – roughly the same salary as a U.S. Senator, and far below the average salary of a CEO. [Source: Hartford Courant, 10/13/06; Lamont Digital Systems salary records; New York Times, 8/3/06; LDS employment records]