Hartford Business Journal

42 HARTFORDBUSINESS.COM | APRIL 6, 2026 Opinion & Commentary EDITOR'S TAKE Legislature's labor agenda risks hurting business competitiveness C onnecticut lawmakers are again advancing a wave of workplace mandates that, taken together, risk further eroding the state's economic competitiveness. In just six weeks, the Labor and Public Employees Committee approved 48 bills — many of them imposing new requirements or restrictions on employers across multiple industries. Individually, some of these proposals may appear modest or well-intentioned. Collectively, they repre- sent a steady ratcheting up of costs, compliance burdens and operational constraints at a time when Connecticut businesses are already navigating high taxes, elevated energy costs, AI uncer- tainty and a tight labor market. Consider Senate Bill 440, which would allow striking workers to collect unem- ployment benefits after 14 days. Gov. Ned Lamont vetoed a similar proposal last year, calling it "a bridge too far," and for good reason. Expanding unemploy- ment benefits to cover labor disputes means the costs of a strike would no longer be borne primarily by unions and workers, but instead spread across the unemployment system — which is funded by employer taxes. More importantly, it sends a signal to manufacturers and other capital-in- tensive industries that Connecticut is willing to increase uncertainty around labor costs and work stoppages. At a time when states are competing aggres- sively for advanced manufacturing and supply chain investment, that's a risk Connecticut can't afford to take. Other proposals raise similar concerns. A bill requiring employers to provide work schedules 14 days in advance, with penalties for changes, may reduce flex- ibility in industries like retail, hospitality and health care, where demand can shift quickly. Restrictions on self-checkout lanes — mandating staffing ratios and caps on machines — veer into micro- management of business operations. Limits on noncompete agreements, expanded workers' compensation eligi- bility and new pay transparency require- ments all add layers of compliance that disproportionately impact small and midsize employers. Then there's the proposed expansion of worker retention rules, which would require new contractors to keep existing employees for at least 90 days after a contract change. Business groups warn this could discourage companies from bidding on contracts, reduce compe- tition and increase costs for property owners and public entities alike. None of this is to dismiss the under- lying goals. Lawmakers are trying to improve job security, wages and working conditions. And employers should negotiate in good faith with labor unions. But policymaking requires trade-offs. Connecticut is already a high-cost state — a reality that isn't going to change anytime soon. Where the state can make the biggest difference is improving its business climate — making it easier and faster to operate here, with more predictable rules and permitting timelines. There are examples of that approach this session. A proposal to streamline Depart- ment of Energy and Environmental Protection permitting aims to reduce delays and increase predictability for businesses navigating the regulatory process. Efforts like DEEP's broader permitting overhaul, including the adoption of general permits and faster renewals, reflect a recognition that time and certainty matter just as much as cost when companies decide where to invest. That's the kind of policy direction Connecticut should be prioritizing. Instead, the current slate of labor bills moves in the opposite direction — adding friction, increasing risk and signaling to employers that the regu- latory environment is becoming more complex, not less. The cumulative effect matters. Businesses don't evaluate policies in isolation; they look at the overall trajectory of a state's regulatory and cost structure. Even if only a handful of these bills ultimately become law, each one incrementally makes Connecticut a harder place to do business. Lawmakers still have time to change course before the session ends in May. That doesn't mean rejecting every worker-focused proposal. It does mean applying greater discipline — weighing not just the intended benefits of each bill, but also the broader economic impact. If Connecticut wants to compete for jobs, investment and innovation, it needs to send a clear message: this is a state where businesses can grow, adapt and operate without unnecessary constraints. Right now, the legislature is sending the opposite signal. OTHER VOICES Insurer 'downcoding' penalizes physicians for doing their jobs By Ari Geller L ike many medical students, I had a difficult time choosing my specialty. I vacillated between a surgical, more procedure-oriented field and one focused on medicine. In 2003, and probably still today, the surgeons seemed "cooler" — learning complex procedures and brag- ging about them, while we rounded for hours on multiple organ systems. It wasn't until I was mentored by a nephrologist at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx that I was converted. He exemplified the old example of a true clinician, in the tradition of the famous Dr. William Osler, who was one of the four founding professors at the Johns Hopkins School of Medi- cine and is known as "the father of modern medicine." Like Dr. Osler, my mentor took his time with patients, generating a detailed history, conducting a thorough physical, and invariably arriving at the correct diagnosis. Back then, I thought nothing of the time he spent doing so, because it delivered better patient care. Twenty years later — at my small, private nephrology practice in Bloom- field — I practice much in the same way as my mentor did. Caring for patients requires patience. Until recently, practices like ours were reimbursed by insurance companies for the evaluation and management of our patients in a way that at least partially recognized the time we spend on delivering care. That makes sense. However, health insurers have rolled out new policies that effectively render patient care to a series of letter and number codes. This practice will not serve our patients well and undermines the health of independent practices. As a result, my practice supports Senate Bill 342, which recently passed out of the General Assembly's Insur- ance and Real Estate Committee. This would end the practice of using AI or algorithms to systematically "downcode" higher-level evaluation and management (E/M) claims, a practice that reimburses health care providers as if they were performing simpler procedures that require less time to address. Downcoding effectively rewards physicians who see minimally complex patients, and punishes practices that are more cognitive, placing us under greater stress to survive. It also increases administrative costs as we appeal downcoded claims, if we can even spot them, because insurers may not inform us that they've even done this. The difference in reimbursement may only amount to around $40 on average, but when averaged over multiple visits, it can easily amount to $45,000 per year, per physician. Health insurers argue that this new policy will prevent waste and abuse and reduce inconsistent documenta- tion. They also say their new AI tool will only target those on the extreme end of the billing bell curve. Not so. The health of our patients is para- mount, and many of us spend hours on documentation and calling patients and families, unrelated to time spent face-to-face with our patients. Further reducing the reimbursement for complex patients is both demoralizing and unnecessarily punitive — especially in a state with rapidly rising costs, and where it is increasingly difficult to recruit new health care providers. In 2025, 42% of nephrology training programs did not fill, and 27% of fellow- ship positions went unfilled. Surveys among medical residents show lack of interest in nephrology, and other similar fields, due to concerns about lifestyle and reimbursement. Downcoding only fuels that fire and will drive more physicians out of private practice, further limiting patient choice. There are better ways to improve billing accuracy than pre-emptively cutting legitimate claims for our complex patients. Collaborative audits and physician education would be a much better method than the "punish- ment by default" of downcoding. This is why Senate Bill 342 must pass. When a physician's time is treated as negotiable, everyone loses. Ari Geller is a physician with Greater Hartford Nephrology LLC and a board director and member of Southern New England Healthcare Network. Greg Bordonaro Ari Geller

• Cover