Insurance coverage, personal healthcare spending, longevity, mortality, health risks, and provider shortages.
Uninsured rate · all ages5.8%2024 · #36 of 50 · highest first
Uninsured rate · under age 657%2024 · #38 of 50 · highest first
Private coverage · under age 6571.9%2024 · #25 of 50 · highest first
Connecticut over time
Explore Connecticut readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Connecticut officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Connecticut effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Connecticut change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Uninsured rate · all ages Connecticut · source units
ConnecticutPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
22 of 22 reviewed Connecticut actions match · 20 date markers shown. 25 major events shown separately.
Connecticut · 2024: 5.8% · Rank #36 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2%
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
View observations and export data
Connecticut Uninsured rate · all ages · source units
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Connecticut · state comparison
Who has health coverage?
Compare ACS annual estimates for all ages or people under 65. Coverage categories can overlap and do not sum to the insured share.
Connecticut · 20245.8%
Connecticut rank#36among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark8.2%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Uninsured rate · all ages
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population.
ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Connecticut
2024 · Connecticut: 5.8% · Rank #36 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Connecticut Uninsured rate · all ages history
Period
Connecticut
Compare
2014
6.9%
2015
6%
2016
4.9%
2017
5.5%
2018
5.3%
2019
5.9%
2020
Not available
2021
5.2%
2022
5.2%
2023
5.7%
2024
5.8%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · 2.8%Higher value · 16.7%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · 5.8%2024 · Rank #36 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Uninsured rate · all ages · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
16.7%
—
#2
Georgia
12%
—
#3
Oklahoma
11.5%
—
#4
Nevada
11.4%
—
#5
Alaska
11%
—
#6
Florida
10.9%
—
#7
Arizona
10.3%
—
#7
Wyoming
10.3%
—
#9
New Mexico
10.1%
—
#10
Mississippi
9.7%
—
#10
Tennessee
9.7%
—
#12
Arkansas
9.4%
—
#13
Idaho
9.2%
—
#14
South Carolina
9%
—
#15
Montana
8.8%
—
#16
North Carolina
8.6%
—
#17
Kansas
8.5%
—
#18
Utah
8.3%
—
#19
Alabama
8.2%
—
#20
South Dakota
8.1%
—
#21
Colorado
7.9%
—
#22
Louisiana
7.7%
—
#22
Missouri
7.7%
—
#22
New Jersey
7.7%
—
#25
Indiana
7.5%
—
#26
Nebraska
7.1%
—
#27
Delaware
6.9%
—
#27
Illinois
6.9%
—
#27
Virginia
6.9%
—
#30
Kentucky
6.8%
—
#31
Ohio
6.7%
—
#32
Washington
6.5%
—
#33
Maryland
6.3%
—
#34
North Dakota
6.1%
—
#35
California
5.9%
—
#36
Connecticut · your comparison
5.8%
—
#36
Pennsylvania
5.8%
—
#36
West Virginia
5.8%
—
#39
Maine
5.5%
—
#40
Iowa
5.4%
—
#41
Wisconsin
5.3%
—
#42
Oregon
5.2%
—
#43
Michigan
5.1%
—
#43
Minnesota
5.1%
—
#45
New York
5%
—
#46
Rhode Island
4.6%
—
#47
New Hampshire
4.5%
—
#48
Vermont
4.2%
—
#49
Hawaii
3.5%
—
#50
Massachusetts
2.8%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Share of Connecticut’s civilian noninstitutionalized residents under age 65 who lacked comprehensive health-insurance coverage at the time of the ACS survey.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate.
This is a survey estimate for people under 65 and does not describe coverage type or continuity of coverage.
Insurance status alone does not measure affordability, access, quality, or health outcomes.
State spending is reported for 2020, the latest year available in this CMS state series. Choose a service to compare Connecticut with every state.
Connecticut · 2020$12,489
Connecticut rank#8among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$10,191Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Personal healthcare spending per resident
Personal health care expenditure per resident, assigned to the state where the patient resides.
2020 is the last year in this CMS state series. Personal health care excludes administration, public health, and investment included in national health expenditures. This is spending by all payers, not a household bill.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Connecticut
2020 · Connecticut: $12,489 · Rank #8 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Connecticut Personal healthcare spending per resident history
Period
Connecticut
Compare
2014
$9,831
2015
$10,294
2016
$10,705
2017
$10,989
2018
$11,378
2019
$11,831
2020
$12,489
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · $7.52KHigher value · $14.01KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · $12,4892020 · Rank #8 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Personal healthcare spending per resident · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New York
$14,007
—
#2
Alaska
$13,642
—
#3
Massachusetts
$13,319
—
#4
Delaware
$12,899
—
#5
West Virginia
$12,769
—
#6
Vermont
$12,756
—
#7
South Dakota
$12,495
—
#8
Connecticut · your comparison
$12,489
—
#9
Maine
$12,077
—
#10
New Jersey
$11,868
—
#11
New Hampshire
$11,793
—
#12
Rhode Island
$11,694
—
#13
Pennsylvania
$11,603
—
#14
North Dakota
$11,301
—
#15
Wyoming
$10,989
—
#16
Minnesota
$10,846
—
#17
Maryland
$10,839
—
#18
Indiana
$10,517
—
#19
Louisiana
$10,515
—
#20
Nebraska
$10,514
—
#21
Ohio
$10,478
—
#22
California
$10,299
—
#23
Hawaii
$10,291
—
#24
Kentucky
$10,257
—
#25
Montana
$10,212
—
#26
Illinois
$10,190
—
#27
Oregon
$10,071
—
#28
Wisconsin
$9,982
—
#29
Missouri
$9,921
—
#30
Michigan
$9,897
—
#31
Florida
$9,865
—
#32
Iowa
$9,789
—
#33
Oklahoma
$9,444
—
#34
Kansas
$9,408
—
#35
Mississippi
$9,394
—
#36
Arkansas
$9,338
—
#37
Tennessee
$9,336
—
#38
Alabama
$9,280
—
#39
Washington
$9,265
—
#40
Virginia
$9,195
—
#41
North Carolina
$8,917
—
#42
New Mexico
$8,902
—
#43
South Carolina
$8,766
—
#44
Georgia
$8,758
—
#45
Arizona
$8,756
—
#46
Colorado
$8,583
—
#47
Texas
$8,406
—
#48
Nevada
$8,348
—
#49
Idaho
$8,148
—
#50
Utah
$7,522
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Use age-adjusted mortality to account for different age distributions; life expectancy summarizes period death rates.
Connecticut · 202279.4 years
Connecticut rank#5among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark77.5 yearsSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Life expectancy at birth
FactVote uses CDC National Center for Health Statistics annual complete life-table estimates for the total Connecticut population. Values are rounded to the published tenth of a year.
The latest published comparable state series ends in 2022, even though newer national life-expectancy estimates may be available. Period life expectancy summarizes current mortality rates; it is not a forecast of how long a particular person will live. The 2020 and 2021 estimates reflect the mortality shock during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Connecticut
2022 · Connecticut: 79.4 years · Rank #5 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Connecticut Life expectancy at birth history
Period
Connecticut
Compare
2018
80.4 years
2019
80.3 years
2020
78.4 years
2021
79.2 years
2022
79.4 years
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · 72.2 yearsHigher value · 80 yearsStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · 79.4 years2022 · Rank #5 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Life expectancy at birth · 2022 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii
80 years
—
#2
Massachusetts
79.8 years
—
#3
New Jersey
79.6 years
—
#4
New York
79.5 years
—
#5
Connecticut · your comparison
79.4 years
—
#6
California
79.3 years
—
#6
Minnesota
79.3 years
—
#8
Rhode Island
79.2 years
—
#9
Utah
79 years
—
#10
New Hampshire
78.7 years
—
#11
Colorado
78.5 years
—
#12
Idaho
78.4 years
—
#12
Washington
78.4 years
—
#14
Nebraska
78.3 years
—
#14
Vermont
78.3 years
—
#16
Wisconsin
78.1 years
—
#17
Florida
77.9 years
—
#17
Iowa
77.9 years
—
#17
North Dakota
77.9 years
—
#20
Maryland
77.8 years
—
#21
Oregon
77.7 years
—
#22
Illinois
77.5 years
—
#22
Virginia
77.5 years
—
#24
Montana
77.3 years
—
#24
Pennsylvania
77.3 years
—
#24
South Dakota
77.3 years
—
#27
Texas
77.1 years
—
#28
Michigan
76.8 years
—
#28
Wyoming
76.8 years
—
#30
Arizona
76.7 years
—
#31
Maine
76.6 years
—
#32
Delaware
76.5 years
—
#32
Kansas
76.5 years
—
#34
Nevada
76.4 years
—
#35
Georgia
75.9 years
—
#35
North Carolina
75.9 years
—
#37
Alaska
75.8 years
—
#38
Ohio
75.6 years
—
#39
Indiana
75.4 years
—
#40
Missouri
75.2 years
—
#41
South Carolina
75.1 years
—
#42
New Mexico
74.5 years
—
#43
Arkansas
73.9 years
—
#44
Alabama
73.8 years
—
#44
Louisiana
73.8 years
—
#44
Oklahoma
73.8 years
—
#44
Tennessee
73.8 years
—
#48
Kentucky
73.6 years
—
#49
Mississippi
72.6 years
—
#50
West Virginia
72.2 years
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare age-adjusted adult prevalence using the same survey year and definition.
Connecticut · 20238.4%
Connecticut rank#42among 48 states with data
U.S. benchmark10.7%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted
Adult self-reported prevalence, age-adjusted to a common population.
Published CDC 2019–2023 series. Missing or suppressed estimates remain unranked. Confidence intervals describe sampling uncertainty; point ranks are not significance tests.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Connecticut
2023 · Connecticut: 8.4% · Rank #42 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Connecticut Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
Period
Connecticut
Compare
2019
8.3%
2020
8.3%
2021
9.4%
2022
9.2%
2023
8.4%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · 7.8%Higher value · 15.1%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · 8.4%2023 · Rank #42 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 7.6% – 9.3%Selected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted · 2023 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Mississippi
15.1%
95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1
West Virginia
15.1%
95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3
Louisiana
14.6%
95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4
Alabama
14%
95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5
Arkansas
13.1%
95% CI: 12–14.3
#6
South Carolina
12.7%
95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6
Tennessee
12.7%
95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8
Texas
12.1%
95% CI: 11–13.3
#9
Indiana
11.7%
95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10
Georgia
11.5%
95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10
Ohio
11.5%
95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12
Oklahoma
11.3%
95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13
Delaware
11.1%
95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14
North Carolina
11%
95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15
Illinois
10.9%
95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15
Maryland
10.9%
95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15
Michigan
10.9%
95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18
Nevada
10.8%
95% CI: 8.9–13
#18
New Mexico
10.8%
95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20
Missouri
10.7%
95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20
South Dakota
10.7%
95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22
California
10.6%
95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23
Kansas
10.5%
95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24
Virginia
10.4%
95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25
Florida
10.1%
95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26
Rhode Island
10%
95% CI: 9.1–11
#27
Arizona
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27
Iowa
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29
Nebraska
9.7%
95% CI: 9–10.3
#30
Wisconsin
9.6%
95% CI: 9–10.2
#31
Hawaii
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31
New York
9.5%
95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31
Oregon
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34
Wyoming
9.4%
95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35
Minnesota
9.3%
95% CI: 8.6–10
#36
New Jersey
9.1%
95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37
Maine
9%
95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38
North Dakota
8.9%
95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39
Idaho
8.7%
95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40
Washington
8.6%
95% CI: 8.2–9
#41
Massachusetts
8.5%
95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42
Connecticut · your comparison
8.4%
95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43
Alaska
8.2%
95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44
Utah
8.1%
95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45
Colorado
8%
95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46
Montana
7.9%
95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46
New Hampshire
7.9%
95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48
Vermont
7.8%
95% CI: 7–8.7
—
Kentucky
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—
Pennsylvania
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare coverage of need, practitioners needed, or affected population for each discipline.
Connecticut · June 30, 202660.3%
Connecticut rank#11among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark47.4%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Primary care · need met
HRSA-designated shortage areas; measures describe need within those areas, not the entire state population.
National report totals can include territories. Designation rules and populations differ by discipline; do not add disciplines. Absolute population and practitioner ranks also reflect state size.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · 11.2%Higher value · 83.2%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · 60.3%June 30, 2026 · Rank #11 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Primary care · need met · June 30, 2026 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New Jersey
83.2%
—
#2
Vermont
82.6%
—
#3
South Carolina
79.4%
—
#4
New Hampshire
74.8%
—
#5
Rhode Island
74.3%
—
#6
Louisiana
72.1%
—
#7
Hawaii
67.1%
—
#8
Utah
65.4%
—
#9
Wisconsin
65.2%
—
#10
Alabama
63%
—
#11
Connecticut · your comparison
60.3%
—
#12
Massachusetts
58%
—
#13
Tennessee
58%
—
#14
Virginia
57.2%
—
#15
Pennsylvania
56.7%
—
#16
Maine
56%
—
#17
Minnesota
55.4%
—
#18
Wyoming
54.4%
—
#19
Indiana
54.2%
—
#20
California
53.2%
—
#21
Arkansas
52.6%
—
#22
Texas
49.8%
—
#23
Ohio
49.7%
—
#24
Nebraska
49.1%
—
#25
Alaska
48.9%
—
#26
North Carolina
48.1%
—
#27
Colorado
47.5%
—
#28
Michigan
44.9%
—
#29
Oregon
43.9%
—
#30
Idaho
43.9%
—
#31
Washington
42.4%
—
#32
Illinois
41.5%
—
#33
Nevada
41.5%
—
#34
Arizona
41.2%
—
#35
Kansas
41.1%
—
#36
Iowa
40.5%
—
#37
Florida
39.7%
—
#38
Georgia
39.1%
—
#39
Montana
38.5%
—
#40
West Virginia
38.3%
—
#41
North Dakota
36.5%
—
#42
New York
35.3%
—
#43
South Dakota
34.6%
—
#44
Mississippi
34.1%
—
#45
Maryland
31.6%
—
#46
New Mexico
31.4%
—
#47
Kentucky
30.8%
—
#48
Oklahoma
28.6%
—
#49
Missouri
23.7%
—
#50
Delaware
11.2%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Premium comparisons use a published historical all-state employer survey. Total premiums combine employer and employee payments.
Connecticut · 2020$7,501
Connecticut rank#8among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$7,149Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Single coverage premium · all firms
Average total annual employer-plan premium per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments offering coverage.
Historical 2020 published all-state table; not a current quote. Includes both employer and employee contributions, rather than just a worker’s payment. Survey estimates and small firm samples carry uncertainty. Missing estimates remain unavailable.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · $6.39KHigher value · $8.64KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · $7,5012020 · Rank #8 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Single coverage premium · all firms · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Alaska
$8,635
—
#2
New York
$8,177
—
#3
New Hampshire
$7,991
—
#4
Vermont
$7,868
—
#5
Wyoming
$7,743
—
#6
Nebraska
$7,611
—
#7
South Carolina
$7,516
—
#8
Connecticut · your comparison
$7,501
—
#9
Maine
$7,496
—
#10
Massachusetts
$7,452
—
#11
Washington
$7,440
—
#12
New Mexico
$7,424
—
#13
Illinois
$7,376
—
#14
New Jersey
$7,373
—
#15
Maryland
$7,352
—
#16
Rhode Island
$7,326
—
#17
Indiana
$7,319
—
#18
Delaware
$7,280
—
#19
Wisconsin
$7,250
—
#20
Pennsylvania
$7,246
—
#21
North Dakota
$7,216
—
#22
Colorado
$7,206
—
#23
Missouri
$7,179
—
#24
California
$7,173
—
#25
Florida
$7,078
—
#26
South Dakota
$7,070
—
#27
Oklahoma
$7,058
—
#28
Hawaii
$7,040
—
#29
North Carolina
$7,036
—
#30
Texas
$7,017
—
#31
West Virginia
$6,993
—
#32
Ohio
$6,989
—
#33
Kentucky
$6,949
—
#34
Iowa
$6,932
—
#35
Virginia
$6,928
—
#36
Oregon
$6,917
—
#37
Minnesota
$6,910
—
#38
Georgia
$6,876
—
#39
Montana
$6,860
—
#40
Idaho
$6,744
—
#41
Louisiana
$6,713
—
#42
Michigan
$6,683
—
#43
Kansas
$6,675
—
#44
Arizona
$6,612
—
#45
Utah
$6,593
—
#46
Mississippi
$6,561
—
#47
Nevada
$6,493
—
#48
Tennessee
$6,485
—
#49
Arkansas
$6,414
—
#50
Alabama
$6,393
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Adult statewide estimates use the same SAMHSA model and survey period. Treatment use is a share of all adults, not a share of adults with mental illness.
Connecticut · 2023–202423.7%
Connecticut rank#30among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark23.1%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+
Civilian noninstitutionalized adults age 18+, past-year prevalence or treatment use, estimated by small-area survey models.
Mental illness and depression estimates pool 2023–2024; treatment use covers 2024 only. Definitions and model-based uncertainty differ from the national page’s annual 2025 survey estimates. Point-estimate ranks do not establish significant differences. Serious mental illness is a subset of any mental illness, so their percentages must not be added.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · 18.1%Higher value · 31.6%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · 23.7%2023–2024 · Rank #30 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ · 2023–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Oregon
31.6%
—
#2
Vermont
29.1%
—
#3
West Virginia
28.1%
—
#4
Washington
27.9%
—
#5
New Hampshire
27.7%
—
#6
Tennessee
27%
—
#7
Utah
26.7%
—
#8
Maine
26.7%
—
#9
Arkansas
26.6%
—
#10
Colorado
26.4%
—
#11
Rhode Island
25.8%
—
#12
Missouri
25.7%
—
#13
Montana
25.6%
—
#14
Indiana
25.3%
—
#15
Kentucky
25.3%
—
#16
Georgia
25.2%
—
#17
Iowa
25%
—
#18
Massachusetts
24.9%
—
#19
Wyoming
24.7%
—
#20
Nevada
24.6%
—
#21
Arizona
24.6%
—
#22
Wisconsin
24.6%
—
#23
Idaho
24.5%
—
#24
Nebraska
24.1%
—
#25
Louisiana
24.1%
—
#26
Alaska
24%
—
#27
Pennsylvania
23.9%
—
#28
New Mexico
23.9%
—
#28
Ohio
23.9%
—
#30
Connecticut · your comparison
23.7%
—
#31
Kansas
23.7%
—
#32
Michigan
23.6%
—
#33
Virginia
23.1%
—
#34
Alabama
23%
—
#35
North Dakota
23%
—
#36
Maryland
22.7%
—
#37
Oklahoma
22.6%
—
#38
Minnesota
22.6%
—
#39
Illinois
22.2%
—
#40
Delaware
22.1%
—
#41
New York
21.9%
—
#42
South Dakota
21.8%
—
#43
California
21.6%
—
#44
North Carolina
21.4%
—
#45
Florida
20.8%
—
#46
Texas
20.7%
—
#47
Mississippi
20.5%
—
#48
Hawaii
19.8%
—
#49
South Carolina
19.8%
—
#50
New Jersey
18.1%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
22 of 22 reviewed Connecticut actions · newest first
Jul 21, 2026 · S 5042 · Social Security 2100 Act · In CongressU.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · S 5042
Social Security 2100 Act
Jul 21, 2026 · In Congress
Sen. Richard Blumenthal · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
S 5042 would raise the first factor in the Social Security benefit formula from 90% to 93% for benefits in 2027–2036. This concerns Social Security cash benefits, not an established increase in the number of Connecticut recipients or the statewide income median.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts Social Security retirement, survivors, and disability beneficiaries in current-payment status. Benefit administration concerns a component of that population; SSI, Medicare, and state pensions are separate programs. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
101.Across-the-board benefit increase(a)In generalSection 215(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking 90 percent and inserting 93 percent.(b)Effective date(1)In generalThe amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable for months in calendar years 2027 through 2036.(2)Recomputation of primary insurance amountsNotwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall recompute primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary—(A)to carry out the amendments made by this section; and(B)and to account for the nonapplication of such amendments after calendar year 2036.(c)Rule of constructionFor purposes of applying subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 215(i)(1) of the Social Security Act in any calendar year, nothing in this section or the amendments made by this section shall be considered a general benefit increase under title II of such Act.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 29, 2026 · HR 9519 · Social Security 2100 Act · In CongressU.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · HR 9519
Social Security 2100 Act
Jun 29, 2026 · In Congress
Rep. John B. Larson · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HR 9519 would raise the first factor in the Social Security benefit formula from 90% to 93% for benefits in 2027–2036. This concerns retirement, survivors, and disability benefit payments and their role in household income; a larger benefit is not itself an additional beneficiary.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Workforce, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts Social Security retirement, survivors, and disability beneficiaries in current-payment status. Benefit administration concerns a component of that population; SSI, Medicare, and state pensions are separate programs. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
101.Across-the-board benefit increase (a)In generalSection 215(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking 90 percent and inserting 93 percent. (b)Effective date (1)In generalThe amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable for months in calendar years 2027 through 2036. (2)Recomputation of primary insurance amountsNotwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall recompute primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary— (A)to carry out the amendments made by this section; and (B)and to account for the nonapplication of such amendments after calendar year 2036. (c)Rule of constructionFor purposes of applying subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 215(i)(1) of the Social Security Act in any calendar year, nothing in this section or the amendments made by this section shall be considered a general benefit increase under title II of such Act.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 4, 2026 · SB220 · SB 220 — Literacy, educator scholarships, ASL and paraeducator health benefits · Signed by governorGovernor · SB220
SB 220 — Literacy, educator scholarships, ASL and paraeducator health benefits
Jun 4, 2026 · Signed by governor
Ned Lamont · Signed
Reviewed topic context
Public Act 26-149 required reading-intervention guidance, revised aspiring-educator scholarship eligibility and teacher-shortage reporting, and established an American Sign Language working group. It continued and revised paraeducator health-benefit subsidies, including charter-school participation, subject to appropriations and eligibility conditions. The act amends existing scholarship and subsidy programs. It does not guarantee an award to every aspiring teacher or paraeducator, and it does not establish better reading scores or that teacher shortages were resolved.
Signed on 2026-06-04. Approved June 4, 2026. Most provisions specify July 1, 2026; the ASL working group specifies January 1, 2027. The charter-school cost calculation is effective from passage, and the act specifies separate reporting and curriculum-guidance deadlines. The act amends existing scholarship and subsidy programs. It does not guarantee an award to every aspiring teacher or paraeducator, and it does not establish better reading scores or that teacher shortages were resolved.
Why this record is included
Public Act 26-149 required reading-intervention guidance, revised aspiring-educator scholarship eligibility and teacher-shortage reporting, and established an American Sign Language working group. It continued and revised paraeducator health-benefit subsidies, including charter-school participation, subject to appropriations and eligibility conditions. The act amends existing scholarship and subsidy programs. It does not guarantee an award to every aspiring teacher or paraeducator, and it does not establish better reading scores or that teacher shortages were resolved. This topic relationship does not establish an effect on a state statistic.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance · education · reviewed policy-topic context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM.
Approved June 4, 2026
Governor Lamont signed the following legislation of the 2026 Regular Session on June 4:
AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 4, 2026 · SB 220 · AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM. · EnactedConnecticut Legislature · SB 220
AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM.
Jun 4, 2026 · Enacted
Rep. Antonio Felipe · Co-sponsored / Rep. Geraldo C. Reyes · Co-sponsored / Rep. Anthony L. Nolan · Co-sponsored / Sen. Eric C. Berthel · Co-sponsored / Rep. Farley Santos · Co-sponsored / Sen. Patricia Billie Miller · Co-sponsored / Rep. Hubert D. Delany · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tom Delnicki · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kenneth Gucker · Co-sponsored / Rep. Christopher Poulos · Co-sponsored / Sen. John A. Kissel · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
SB 220 continues health-plan subsidies for qualifying paraeducators for fiscal 2027 and later years and expressly applies the provision to charter schools. Eligibility remains limited to paraeducators. One route subsidizes deductibles for qualifying public-school paraeducators with health savings accounts or Medicare-eligible high-deductible coverage, subject to employer-contribution offsets, caps and available appropriations. A separate, appropriated premium subsidy offsets paraeducators’ employee contributions in qualifying non-high-deductible plans. Only the under-65 portion relates to this uninsured measure.
Signed by Ned Lamont on 2026-06-04. Public Act No. 26-149. Approval, statutory effective dates, and implementation are distinct; this entry does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
The provision concerns coverage affordability for a limited employee population, including charter-school paraeducators. Its Medicare-related route must not be equated with the under-65 uninsured population, and subsidy authorization does not prove enrollment gains. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Sec. 6. Section 203 of public act 23 -204, as amended by section 124 of public act 24 -81, is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2026): (a) As used in this section: (1) "Health benefit plan" has the same meaning as provided in section 38a-1080 of the general statutes; [,] and (2) "Partnership plan" has the same meaning as provided in section 3- 123aaa of the general statutes. (b) For the fiscal [years] year ending [June 30, 2024, and June 30, 2025] June 30, 2027, and each fiscal year thereafter , the Comptroller shall establish a program to provide a subsidy, within available appropriations, to each paraeducator who (1) opens a health savings account, pursuant to Section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding in ternal revenue code of the United States, as amended from time to time, or is eligible for Medicare and enrolls in a high deductible health plan, and (2) is employed [by a local or regional board of education] in a public school. Such subsidy shall be in an amount up to a certain percentage, as specified by the Comptroller, of the deductible for the health plan in which such paraeducator is enrolled, minus the amount of any employer contributions to a health savings account or health reimbursement account, and not exceeding an amount specified by the Comptroller. No paraeducator may receive Substitute Senate Bill No. 220 Public Act No. 26-149 7 of 8 more than one subsidy pursuant to this section. The Comptroller may work with the local or regional board of education that employs such paraeducator to distribute such subsidy. (c) For the fiscal year ending [June 30, 2025] June 30, 2027, and each fiscal year thereafter , the Comptroller shall establish a program to provide a subsidy, from any funds appropriated for such purpose, to each local or regional board of education that provides coverage to paraeducators and their dependents under a health benefit plan or a partnership plan for such fiscal year or any portion thereof. Such subsidy shall be (1) in an amount not more than ten per cent of the aggregate premium cost, inclusive of the employee and employer shares, paid by such board of education for coverage under such health benefit plan or partnership plan, divided by the number of paraeducators employed by such board of education and enrolled in health coverage, and (2) used to offset the employee's share of such premium that is deducted from the payroll check of each paraeducator employed by such board of education during any pay period during such fiscal year. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a local or regional board of education that provides coverage under a high deductible health plan, as that term is used in subsection (f) of section 38a-520 of the general statutes. Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) of section 10 -66dd of the general statutes, the provisions of this section shall apply to charter schools. [(d) The Comptroller and the Commissioner of Education shall enter into a memorandum of understanding, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 -97b of the general statutes, to allow the Comptroller to utilize the sum of $5,000,000 that is appropriated to the Department of Education for assistance to paraeducators pursuant to section 1 of public act 23 -204 to implement the provisions of this section.]
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 28, 2026 · HB5374 · HB 5374 — Health coverage mandates and infertility definitions · Signed by governorGovernor · HB5374
HB 5374 — Health coverage mandates and infertility definitions
May 28, 2026 · Signed by governor
Ned Lamont · Signed
Reviewed topic context
Public Act 26-33 required specified individual and group insurance policies to cover PANDAS and PANS treatment, including intravenous immunoglobulin, and chemotherapy-related scalp cooling. It removed an athletic-only prosthetic-device exclusion and revised infertility definitions and treatment-eligibility provisions. The mandates apply to specified policy types and retain conditions and limitations. Scalp-cooling cost sharing is restricted relative to other benefits, with high-deductible exceptions; the act does not make every service free or establish health outcomes.
Signed on 2026-05-28. Approved May 28, 2026. Every section specifies January 1, 2027 for effectiveness; new coverage provisions apply to covered policies delivered, issued for delivery, renewed, amended or continued from that date. The mandates apply to specified policy types and retain conditions and limitations. Scalp-cooling cost sharing is restricted relative to other benefits, with high-deductible exceptions; the act does not make every service free or establish health outcomes.
Why this record is included
Public Act 26-33 required specified individual and group insurance policies to cover PANDAS and PANS treatment, including intravenous immunoglobulin, and chemotherapy-related scalp cooling. It removed an athletic-only prosthetic-device exclusion and revised infertility definitions and treatment-eligibility provisions. The mandates apply to specified policy types and retain conditions and limitations. Scalp-cooling cost sharing is restricted relative to other benefits, with high-deductible exceptions; the act does not make every service free or establish health outcomes. This topic relationship does not establish an effect on a state statistic.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: health · reviewed policy-topic context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
AN ACT CONCERNING HEALTH COVERAGE MANDATES FOR CERTAIN HEALTH CONDITIONS.
Approved May 28, 2026
Governor Lamont signed the following legislation of the 2026 Regular Session on May 28:
AN ACT CONCERNING HEALTH COVERAGE MANDATES FOR CERTAIN HEALTH CONDITIONS.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 26, 2026 · HB 5043 · AN ACT CONCERNING CONVERTIBLE PISTOLS, UNFINISHED FRAMES OR UNFINISHED LOWER RECEIVERS, VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION, AND REFUNDABILITY OF PERMITS FOR SALE AT RETAIL OF FIREARMS AND FOR CARRYING OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS. · SignedGovernor · HB 5043
AN ACT CONCERNING CONVERTIBLE PISTOLS, UNFINISHED FRAMES OR UNFINISHED LOWER RECEIVERS, VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION, AND REFUNDABILITY OF PERMITS FOR SALE AT RETAIL OF FIREARMS AND FOR CARRYING OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS.
May 26, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Ned Lamont · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Ned Lamont signed HB 5043. Effective October 1, 2026, HB 5043 makes knowing importation, advertising or sale of a statutorily defined convertible pistol manufactured on or after that date a class D felony. The definition covers specified readily convertible semiautomatic pistols and excludes hammer-fired and qualifying shielded-trigger designs. Lawful transfers between people who are not licensed gun dealers are exempt. This addresses firearm access, without establishing a change in deaths.
Signed by Ned Lamont on 2026-05-26. Public Act No. 26-41. Approval, statutory effective dates, and implementation are distinct; this entry does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(4) "Convertible pistol" means any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily altered by hand or with a common household tool so that the pistol can be readily converted into a machine gun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, as defined in subsection (c) of section 53-206g, as amended by this act. "Convertible pistol" does not include (A) any hammer -fired semiautomatic pistol, or (B) any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that has a tab or other piece of material molded to the pistol's frame that shields the cruciform trigger bar from interference by a pistol converter, unless the tab or other piece of material can be readily removed from the pistol's frame. (5) "Cruciform trigger ba r" means a component in a semiautomatic pistol that serves as a linkage between the trigger and firing pin and has its sear incorporated in a cross -shaped surface. (6) "Common household tool" includes, but is not limited to, a knife, screwdriver, wrench, hacksaw, crowbar, electric drill, rotary tool, hammer, chisel, file or pliers. […] Sec. 3. (NEW) ( Effective October 1, 2026 ) (a) Any individual or firm, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association or other similar entity that knowingly imports into this state or knowingly advertises, sells, offers or exposes for sale any convertible pistol, as defined in section 53-202 of the general statutes, as amended by this act, that was manufactured on or after October 1, 2026, shall be guilty of a class D felony. (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to sale at retail or other lawful transfer of a convertible pistol by a person who is not a licensed gun dealer to another person who is not a licensed gun dealer.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Connecticut officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health from FactVote’s Connecticut candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
54 statements from 14 candidates
2026 Connecticut Attorney General — General Election
2 candidates with matching statements · 4 statements
Connecticut families deserve affordable, accessible healthcare. As Attorney General, I will use existing antitrust and consumer protection laws to protect patients, promote competition, and hold bad actors accountable.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Connecticut families deserve affordable, accessible healthcare. As Attorney General, I will use existing antitrust and consumer protection laws to protect patients, promote competition, and hold bad actors accountable.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Attorney General Tong works every day to safeguard our civil rights and freedoms, fighting alongside state attorneys general nationwide to protect the rights of women, minority communities, immigrants and the LGBTQ+ community. He has vowed to fight in any court, in any state, anywhere access to repr…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Reproductive rights and health care
Candidate campaign source
Attorney General Tong works every day to safeguard our civil rights and freedoms, fighting alongside state attorneys general nationwide to protect the rights of women, minority communities, immigrants and the LGBTQ+ community. He has vowed to fight in any court, in any state, anywhere access to reproductive healthcare is under threat. He is aggressively defending Connecticut’s post- Sandy Hook gun laws against challenges by out of state gun lobbies. Under his leadership, Connecticut has sued ExxonMobil to end its ongoing, systematic campaign of lies around fossil fuels and climate change.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
Governor Lamont’s Fair Share Healthcare Initiative lowers health insurance premiums by requiring large corporations to take responsibility for the healthcare costs of their workforce instead of shifting those costs onto taxpayers. The plan protects small businesses, closes corporate loopholes, and i…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Governor Lamont’s Fair Share Healthcare Initiative lowers health insurance premiums by requiring large corporations to take responsibility for the healthcare costs of their workforce instead of shifting those costs onto taxpayers. The plan protects small businesses, closes corporate loopholes, and invests more than $100 million annually into making healthcare more affordable for working- and middle-class families.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Require large corporations with employees enrolled in HUSKY (Medicaid) to contribute up to $1,000 per employee, ensuring they pay their fair share instead of shifting costs onto taxpayers.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Require large corporations with employees enrolled in HUSKY (Medicaid) to contribute up to $1,000 per employee, ensuring they pay their fair share instead of shifting costs onto taxpayers.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Governor Lamont’s forward agenda will continue focusing on lowering costs and making life more affordable for working families across Connecticut. Childcare, healthcare, housing, and education are essential building blocks for a strong economy and stronger communities.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Governor Lamont’s forward agenda will continue focusing on lowering costs and making life more affordable for working families across Connecticut. Childcare, healthcare, housing, and education are essential building blocks for a strong economy and stronger communities.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Connecticut is home to over 130,000 veterans, yet progress on veteran homelessness, healthcare access, and job training has stalled. Ryan will streamline veteran services, reduce costs, cut fees, recognize out-of-state licenses, and support employment opportunities for those who served.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Connecticut is home to over 130,000 veterans, yet progress on veteran homelessness, healthcare access, and job training has stalled. Ryan will streamline veteran services, reduce costs, cut fees, recognize out-of-state licenses, and support employment opportunities for those who served.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
This section matches specific health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health terms in retained, attributed source text from published Connecticut candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Connecticut incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Connecticut legislators and Connecticut’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Connecticut’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
7 matching sponsorships or proposals · 4 Connecticut incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. John B. Larson
U.S. House of Representatives, Connecticut District 1 · D–CT
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. John B. LarsonU.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · HR 9519
Social Security 2100 Act
Jun 29, 2026 · In Congress
Rep. John B. Larson · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HR 9519 would raise the first factor in the Social Security benefit formula from 90% to 93% for benefits in 2027–2036. This concerns retirement, survivors, and disability benefit payments and their role in household income; a larger benefit is not itself an additional beneficiary.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Workforce, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts Social Security retirement, survivors, and disability beneficiaries in current-payment status. Benefit administration concerns a component of that population; SSI, Medicare, and state pensions are separate programs. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
101.Across-the-board benefit increase (a)In generalSection 215(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking 90 percent and inserting 93 percent. (b)Effective date (1)In generalThe amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable for months in calendar years 2027 through 2036. (2)Recomputation of primary insurance amountsNotwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall recompute primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary— (A)to carry out the amendments made by this section; and (B)and to account for the nonapplication of such amendments after calendar year 2036. (c)Rule of constructionFor purposes of applying subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 215(i)(1) of the Social Security Act in any calendar year, nothing in this section or the amendments made by this section shall be considered a general benefit increase under title II of such Act.
U.S. House of Representatives, Connecticut District 3 · D–CT
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Rosa L. DeLauroU.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · HR 1564
Ethan's Law
Feb 25, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HR 1564 would prohibit keeping a covered firearm at a controlled residence when the person keeping it knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain unauthorized access or that a resident is legally ineligible to possess firearms. Secure-device, reasonably secure-location and readily retrievable carry exceptions apply. The proposed Title 18 penalty is a $500 fine per violation, with forfeiture and enhanced penalties of up to five years in prison, a fine, or both if prohibited access causes injury or death.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(4)Secure gun storage by owners(A)Offense(i)In generalExcept as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to store or keep any firearm that has moved in, or that has otherwise affected, interstate or foreign commerce on the premises of a residence under the control of the person if the person knows, or reasonably should know, that—(I)a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor; or(II)a resident of the residence is ineligible to possess a firearm under Federal, State, or local law.(ii)ExceptionClause (i) shall not apply to a person if the person—(I)keeps the firearm—(aa)secure using a secure gun storage or safety device; or(bb)in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or(II)carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity thereto that the person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if the person carried the firearm on his or her person.(B)Penalty(i)In generalAny person who violates subparagraph (A) shall be fined $500 per violation.(ii)Enhanced penaltyIf a person violates subparagraph (A) and a minor or a resident who is ineligible to possess a firearm under Federal, State, or local law obtains the firearm and causes injury or death to such minor or resident, or to any other individual, the person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.(iii)Forfeiture of improperly stored firearmAny firearm stored in violation of subparagraph (A) shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture in accordance with the procedures described in section 924(d).(C)Minor definedIn this paragraph, the term minor means an individual who is less than 18 years of age..
2 proposalsView proposals from Sen. Christopher MurphyU.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · S 4396
Social Security Caregiver Credit Act of 2026
Apr 27, 2026 · In Congress
Sen. Christopher Murphy · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
S 4396 would credit up to the most recent 60 qualifying months of unpaid caregiving for a defined dependent relative before the caregiver reaches Social Security retirement age. Each month requires at least 80 care hours, with application, documentation and certification requirements. The credits apply to benefits after December 2026 and preserve a larger benefit available without the credit. They are deemed wages for Social Security calculations, not cash wages paid to caregivers.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts Social Security retirement, survivors, and disability beneficiaries in current-payment status. Benefit administration concerns a component of that population; SSI, Medicare, and state pensions are separate programs. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
235.Deemed wages for caregivers of dependent relatives(a)DefinitionsFor purposes of this section—(1)(A)Subject to subparagraph (B), the term qualifying month means, in connection with an individual, any month during which such individual was engaged for not less than 80 hours in providing care to a dependent relative without monetary compensation.(B)The term qualifying month does not include any month ending after the date on which such individual attains retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)).(C)For purposes of subparagraph (A), assistance provided to a family caregiver of an eligible veteran under section 1720G of title 38, United States Code, shall not be considered monetary compensation for providing care to such eligible veteran.(2)The term dependent relative means, in connection with an individual—(A)a child, grandchild, niece, or nephew (of such individual or such individual’s spouse or domestic partner), or a child to which the individual or the individual’s spouse or domestic partner is standing in loco parentis, who is under the age of 12; or(B)a child, grandchild, niece, or nephew (of such individual or such individual’s spouse or domestic partner), a child to which the individual or the individual’s spouse or domestic partner is standing in loco parentis, a parent, grandparent, sibling, aunt, or uncle (of such individual or his or her spouse or domestic partner), or such individual’s spouse or domestic partner, if such child, grandchild, niece, nephew, parent, grandparent, sibling, aunt, uncle, spouse, or domestic partner is a chronically dependent individual.(3)(A)The term chronically dependent individual means an individual who—(i)is dependent on a daily basis on verbal reminding, physical cueing, supervision, or other assistance provided to the individual by another person in the performance of at least two of the activities of daily living (described in subparagraph (B)) or instrumental activities of daily living (described in subparagraph (C)); and(ii)without the assistance described in clause (i), could not perform such activities of daily living or instrumental activities of daily living.(B)The activities of daily living referred to in subparagraph (A) mean basic personal everyday activities, including—(i)eating;(ii)bathing;(iii)dressing;(iv)toileting; and(v)transferring in and out of a bed or in and out of a chair.(C)The instrumental activities of daily living referred to in subparagraph (A) mean activities related to living independently in the community, including—(i)meal planning and preparation;(ii)managing finances;(iii)shopping for food, clothing, or other essential items;(iv)performing essential household chores;(v)communicating by phone or other form of media; and(vi)traveling around and participating in the community.(b)Deemed Wages of Caregiver(1)(A)For purposes of determining entitlement to and the amount of any monthly benefit for any month after December 2026, or entitlement to and the amount of any lump-sum death payment in the case of a death after such month, payable under this title on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any individual, and for purposes of section 216(i)(3), such individual shall be deemed to have been paid during each qualifying month (in addition to wages or self-employment income actually paid to or derived by such individual during such month) at an amount per month equal to—(i)in the case of a qualifying month during which no wages or self-employment income were actually paid to or derived by such individual, 50 percent of the national average wage index (as defined in section 209(k)(1)) for the second calendar year preceding the calendar year in which such month occurs; and(ii)in the case of any other qualifying month, the excess of the amount determined under clause (i) over 1/2 of the wages or self-employment income actually paid to or derived by such individual during such month.(B)In any case in which there are more than 60 qualifying months for an individual, only the last 60 of such months shall be taken into account for purposes of this section.(2)Paragraph (1) shall not be applicable in the case of any monthly benefit or lump-sum death payment if a larger such benefit or payment, as the case may be, would be payable without its application.(c)Rules and regulations(1)Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Commissioner of Social Security shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section and to prevent fraud and abuse with respect to the benefits under this section, including regulations establishing procedures for the application and certification requirements described in paragraph (2).(2)A qualifying month shall not be taken into account under this section with respect to an individual unless—(A)the individual submits to the Commissioner of Social Security an application for benefits under this section that includes—(i)the name and identifying information of the dependent relative with respect to whom the individual was engaged in providing care during such month;(ii)if the dependent relative is not a child under the age of 12, documentation from the physician of the dependent relative explaining why the dependent relative is a chronically dependent individual; and(iii)such other information as the Commissioner may require to verify the status of the dependent relative; and(B)for every qualifying month or period of up to 12 consecutive qualifying months that occurs after the first period of 12 consecutive qualifying months, the individual certifies, in such form and manner as the Commissioner shall require, that the information provided in the individual’s application for benefits under this section has not changed..
S 595 would establish an Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the Justice Department to coordinate prevention work. Its definition expressly includes firearm homicide, violent crime, domestic violence, suicide, and unintentional injury. Each relationship concerns the relevant firearm component, not all homicide or all FBI violent offenses.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The proposed office coordinates programs, data, evaluation and policy. This administrative connection concerns the firearm-related component of the linked mortality or FBI violent-crime measure; its broader gun-violence definition is not a substitute for the statistical definition. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: Firearm deaths · Homicide deaths · Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(3)Gun violenceThe term gun violence includes homicide, violent crime, domestic violence, attempted suicide, suicide, and unintentional death or injury involving a firearm.(4)OfficeThe term Office means the Office of Gun Violence Prevention established under section 3(a).3.Office of Gun Violence Prevention(a)Establishment(1)In generalThe Attorney General shall establish within the Office of Legal Policy of the Department of Justice the Office of Gun Violence Prevention.(2)DirectorThe Attorney General shall appoint a Director to be the head of the Office.(b)Duties(1)In generalThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall coordinate, integrate, and maximize the efficacy of each responsibility, program, and service relating to gun violence prevention administered by the Attorney General to maximize an integrated approach to reducing gun violence and serving victims of gun violence, including—(A)the responsibilities of the heads of the Criminal and Civil Divisions of the Department of Justice, the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, each United States Attorney, the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, the Director of the Office of Victims of Crime, and the Director of the Office of Justice Programs; and(B)the administration of the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901). (2)EvaluationThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall evaluate laws, regulations, Federal programs, offices, data sources, and grant programs relating to gun violence prevention administered by the Attorney General to assess how each such law, regulation, Federal program, office, data source, and grant program can be maximized, modernized, and coordinated to reduce gun violence.(3)Policy recommendationsThe Director shall recommend to Congress and the President legislative and executive policy options to promote evidence-based gun violence prevention strategies, including the implementation of existing laws, regulations, and grant programs.(4)DataThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall—(A)identify gaps in available data needed for gun violence prevention research, policy development, and the implementation of evidence-based gun violence prevention strategies; and(B)develop a plan to collect and analyze the data described in subparagraph (A).(5)AssessmentThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall assess ongoing research efforts of the Department of Justice relating to gun violence to establish a comprehensive research agenda on the causes and solutions of gun violence.(6)EducationThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall educate the general public about Federal laws, regulations, and grant programs relating to gun violence prevention, including by conducting education and awareness campaigns—(A)directed at—(i)owners of firearms;(ii)parents and legal guardians of minors; and(iii)professionals who provide services to individuals and communities disproportionately impacted by gun violence; and(B)that include education relating to the secure storage or firearms and suicide prevention.(7)Crisis responseThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall assist communities that have experienced gun violence (such as a mass shooting, a school shooting, a gang-related shooting, or a domestic violence shooting) with crisis response activities, including providing information about and increasing access to—(A)mental health services for members of the community;(B)anti-gun trafficking activities;(C)crisis response training for first responders and offices of gun violence prevention serving the community; and(D)suicide prevention services for members of the community.(8)CoordinationIn carrying out the duties under this subsection, the Director shall coordinate with Federal agencies and commissions that have jurisdiction over gun violence prevention, including— (A)the Department of Health and Human Services;(B)the Department of Veterans Affairs;(C)the Department of Education;(D)the Department of Housing and Urban Development;(E)the Department of Commerce;(F)the Department of Homeland Security;(G)the Department of Defense;(H)the Department of the Interior;(I)the Department of Labor;(J)the Department of Agriculture;(K)the Small Business Administration; (L)the Consumer Product Safety Commission;(M)the Federal Trade Commission; and(N)the United States Sentencing Commission.(9)Annual reportNot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit to Congress a report that includes—(A)information on the state of gun violence in the United States;(B)recommendations for policy initiatives and legislation to reduce gun violence in the United States; and(C)a description of the efforts of the Director to carry out the duties under this subsection.
3 proposalsView proposals from Sen. Richard BlumenthalU.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · S 5042
Social Security 2100 Act
Jul 21, 2026 · In Congress
Sen. Richard Blumenthal · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
S 5042 would raise the first factor in the Social Security benefit formula from 90% to 93% for benefits in 2027–2036. This concerns Social Security cash benefits, not an established increase in the number of Connecticut recipients or the statewide income median.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts Social Security retirement, survivors, and disability beneficiaries in current-payment status. Benefit administration concerns a component of that population; SSI, Medicare, and state pensions are separate programs. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
101.Across-the-board benefit increase(a)In generalSection 215(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking 90 percent and inserting 93 percent.(b)Effective date(1)In generalThe amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable for months in calendar years 2027 through 2036.(2)Recomputation of primary insurance amountsNotwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall recompute primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary—(A)to carry out the amendments made by this section; and(B)and to account for the nonapplication of such amendments after calendar year 2036.(c)Rule of constructionFor purposes of applying subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 215(i)(1) of the Social Security Act in any calendar year, nothing in this section or the amendments made by this section shall be considered a general benefit increase under title II of such Act.
Beginning January 1, 2027, S 2071 would require Medicaid assistance for qualifying survivors of specified disasters and emergencies, generally during a two-year relief period. Eligibility uses the higher of the home-state Medicaid income limit or 133% of the federal poverty level, raised to 200% for children, pregnant individuals and specified disability beneficiaries, with stated extensions and income exclusions. This is a limited Medicaid coverage proposal, not Social Security retirement or disability cash benefits.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact measures residents under 65 without health insurance. Insurance eligibility, enrollment, coverage continuity and premium assistance concern the covered population. Provider payments and covered services alone do not establish a coverage change, and Medicare-only changes mostly concern a different age population. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(88)beginning January 1, 2027, provide for making medical assistance available to relief-eligible survivors of disasters during relief coverage periods in accordance with section 1949.; and(2)by adding at the end the following new section:1949.Disaster relief Medicaid for survivors of major disasters(a)In generalNotwithstanding any other provision of this title, a State plan shall provide medical assistance to a relief-eligible survivor of a disaster in accordance with this section.(b)DefinitionsIn this section:(1)DisasterThe term disaster means any of the following:(A)A major disaster that is declared on or after January 1, 2027, by the President in accordance with section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) and which the President has determined warrants individual or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act. (B)A national emergency declared by the President under the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).(C)A public health emergency declared by the Secretary pursuant to section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d).(2)Direct impact area(A)In generalThe term direct impact area means, with respect to a disaster, the geographic area in which the disaster exists.(B)Website posting of direct impact areasAs soon as practicable after a disaster is declared (as described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as applicable), the Secretary shall post on the websites of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency a list of the areas identified as the direct impact areas of the disaster.(3)Home StateThe term home State means, with respect to a survivor of a disaster, the State in which the survivor was a resident (as determined in accordance with section 435.403 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation)) on the date on which the disaster is declared (as described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as applicable).(4)Relief coverage periodThe term relief coverage period means, with respect to a disaster, the period that begins on the date the disaster is declared (as described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as applicable) and ends on the day that is 2 years after such date.(5)Relief-eligible survivor(A)In generalSubject to subparagraph (C), the term relief-eligible survivor means an individual who is a survivor of a disaster whose family income does not exceed the higher of—(i)133 percent (or, in the case of a survivor who is a pregnant individual, a child, or a recipient of benefits under title II on the basis of a disability, 200 percent) of the poverty line; or(ii)the income eligibility standard that would otherwise apply to the survivor under the State plan of the survivor's home State (or a waiver of such plan).(B)Disregard of unemployment income and FEMA individual assistance grantsFor purposes of this section, and notwithstanding section 1902(e)(14)(B), the income of a survivor of a disaster shall not include—(i)any amount received by the survivor during the relief coverage period of the disaster under a law of the United States or a State which is in the nature of unemployment compensation; or(ii)any amount received during the relief coverage period of the disaster by the survivor (or the survivor's household) as assistance under a program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.(C)Limitation to relief coverage period(i)In generalExcept as provided in clauses (ii) and (iii), for purposes of this section, an individual shall not be considered to be a relief-eligible survivor on the basis of the individual's status as a survivor of a disaster after the end of the relief coverage period of the disaster.(ii)Continuous eligibility for disaster relief coverage for pregnant and postpartum individualsIn the case of an individual who, while pregnant, receives medical assistance as a relief-eligible survivor of a disaster under a State plan (or a waiver of such a plan) in accordance with this section, such individual shall continue to be eligible for medical assistance as a relief-eligible survivor through the end of the month in which the 60-day period (beginning on the last day of the pregnancy) (or, if longer, the period of postpartum continuous eligibility that otherwise applies to individuals who, while pregnant, are eligible for medical assistance under the State plan or waiver) ends, without regard to whether the pregnancy ends before or after the end of the relief coverage period of the disaster.(iii)Continuous eligibility for individuals with pending applicationsIf an individual who receives medical assistance as a relief-eligible survivor of a disaster under a State plan (or a waiver of such a plan) in accordance with this section has an application pending for medical assistance under the State plan (or waiver) under this title or for child health assistance or pregnancy-related assistance under a State plan under title XXI (or a waiver of such a plan) on the date that the relief coverage period of the disaster ends, such individual shall continue to be eligible for medical assistance as a relief-eligible survivor through the earlier of—(I)the end of the month in which the 60-day period (beginning on the last day of such relief coverage period) ends; and(II)the date on which the individual's application for medical assistance, child health assistance, or pregnancy-related assistance (as applicable) is approved or denied.(6)Survivor(A)In generalThe term survivor means, with respect to a disaster, an individual who is described in subparagraph (B) or (C).(B)Residents and evacuees of direct impact areasAn individual described in this subparagraph is an individual who, on the date on which a disaster is declared (as described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as applicable), has a primary residence in the disaster's direct impact area.(C)Individuals who lost employmentAn individual described in this subparagraph is an individual—(i)whose worksite was located in the disaster's direct impact area;(ii)who was employed by an employer that—(I)conducted an active trade or business in such area on the date on which the disaster was declared (as so described); and(II)was unable to operate such trade or business as a result of the disaster on any day during the disaster's relief coverage period; and(iii)whose employment with such employer was terminated.(D)Treatment of homeless personsIn the case of an individual who is homeless (as such term is defined in section 103(a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a))) on the date on which a disaster is declared (as so described), the individual's residency for purposes of subparagraph (B) shall be determined in accordance with section 435.403 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation).(E)Effect of concurrent eligibility for Medicaid or CHIPAn individual's eligibility for medical assistance under a State plan (or waiver of such plan) (or for child health assistance or pregnancy-related assistance under a State plan under title XXI (or a waiver of such a plan)) on a basis other than under this section shall not prevent the individual from being treated as a survivor under this section, and the rights afforded to an individual who is eligible for or enrolled under a State plan (or waiver) under either such title shall not be affected by the individual's receipt of medical assistance as a relief-eligible survivor of a disaster in accordance with this section.
Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act of 2025
Mar 6, 2025 · In Congress
Sen. Richard Blumenthal · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
S 889 would authorize grants supporting qualifying state and tribal extreme-risk protection-order laws. Eligibility requires substantially similar procedures, including notice and a hearing within 30 days, a finding of danger supported by a preponderance of evidence or a higher standard, and limits on temporary ex parte orders. Return of firearms remains subject to legal eligibility. Funding authorization does not issue an order against anyone or establish a reduction in deaths.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(b)Grant program established(1)In generalThe Attorney General shall establish a program under which, from amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General may make grants to eligible entities to assist in carrying out the provisions of the legislation described in subsection (c).(2)Use of fundsFunds awarded under this subsection may be used by an applicant to—(A)enhance the capacity of law enforcement agencies and the courts of a State, unit of local government, or Indian Tribe by providing personnel, training, technical assistance, data collection, and other resources to carry out enacted legislation described in subsection (c);(B)train judges, court personnel, health care and legal professionals, and law enforcement officers to more accurately identify individuals whose access to firearms poses a danger of causing harm to themselves or others by increasing the risk of firearms suicide or interpersonal violence;(C)develop and implement law enforcement and court protocols, forms, and orders so that law enforcement agencies and the courts may carry out the provisions of the enacted legislation described in subsection (c) in a safe, equitable, and effective manner, including through the removal and storage of firearms pursuant to extreme risk protection orders under the enacted legislation; and(D)raise public awareness and understanding of the enacted legislation described in subsection (c), including through subgrants to community-based organizations for the training of community members, so that extreme risk protection orders may be issued in appropriate situations to reduce the risk of firearms-related death and injury.(3)ApplicationAn eligible entity desiring a grant under this subsection shall submit to the Attorney General an application at such time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.(4)Training(A)In generalA recipient of a grant under this subsection shall provide training to law enforcement officers, including officers of relevant Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, in the safe, impartial, effective, and equitable use and administration of extreme risk protection orders, including training to address—(i)bias based on race and racism, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, language proficiency, mental health condition, disability, and classism in the use and administration of extreme risk protection orders;(ii)the appropriate use of extreme risk protection orders in cases of domestic violence, including the applicability of other policies and protocols to address domestic violence in situations that may also involve extreme risk protection orders and the necessity of safety planning with the victim before a law enforcement officer petitions for and executes an extreme risk protection order, if applicable;(iii)interacting with persons with a mental illness or emotional distress, including de-escalation and crisis intervention; and(iv)best practices for referring persons subject to extreme risk protection orders and associated victims of violence to social service providers that may be available in the jurisdiction and appropriate for those individuals, including health care, mental health, substance abuse, and legal services, employment and vocational services, housing assistance, case management, and veterans and disability benefits.(B)Consultation with expertsA recipient of a grant under this subsection, in developing law enforcement training required under subparagraph (A), shall seek advice from domestic violence service providers (including culturally specific (as defined in section 40002 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291)) organizations), social service providers, suicide prevention advocates, violence intervention specialists, law enforcement agencies, mental health disability experts, and other community groups working to reduce suicides and violence, including domestic violence, within the State or the territory under the jurisdiction of the Indian Tribe, as applicable, that enacted the legislation described in subsection (c) that enabled the grant recipient to be an eligible entity.(5)Authorization of appropriationsThere are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this subsection.(c)Eligibility for extreme risk protection order grant program(1)RequirementsLegislation described in this subsection is legislation that establishes requirements that are substantially similar to the following:(A)Petition for extreme risk protection orderA petitioner, including a law enforcement officer, may submit a petition to a State or Tribal court, on a form designed by the court or a State or Tribal agency, that—(i)describes the facts and circumstances justifying that an extreme risk protection order be issued against the named individual; and(ii)is signed by the applicant, under oath.(B)Notice and due processThe individual named in a petition for an extreme risk protection order as described in subparagraph (A) shall be given written notice of the petition and an opportunity to be heard on the matter in accordance with this paragraph.(C)Issuance of extreme risk protection orders(i)Hearing(I)In generalUpon receipt of a petition described in subparagraph (A) or request of an individual named in such a petition, the court shall order a hearing to be held within a reasonable time, and not later than 30 days after the date of the petition or request.(II)DeterminationIf the court finds at the hearing ordered under subclause (I), by a preponderance of the evidence or according to a higher evidentiary standard established by the State or Indian Tribe, that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having access to a firearm, the court may issue an extreme risk protection order.(ii)Duration of extreme risk protection orderAn extreme risk protection order shall be in effect—(I)until an order terminating or superseding the extreme risk protection order is issued; or(II)for a set period of time.(D)Ex parte extreme risk protection orders(i)In generalUpon receipt of a petition described in subparagraph (A), the court may issue an ex parte extreme risk protection order, if—(I)the petition for an extreme risk protection order alleges that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having access to a firearm; and(II)the court finds there is probable cause to believe, or makes a finding according to a higher evidentiary standard established by the State or Indian Tribe, that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having access to a firearm.(ii)Duration of ex parte extreme risk protection orderAn ex parte extreme risk protection order shall remain in effect only until the hearing required under subparagraph (C)(i).(E)Storage of removed firearms(i)Availability for returnAll firearms removed or surrendered pursuant to an extreme risk protection order shall only be available for return to the named individual when the individual has regained eligibility under Federal and State law and, where applicable, Tribal law to possess firearms.(ii)Consent required for disposal or destructionFirearms owned by a named individual may not be disposed of or destroyed during the period of the extreme risk protection order without the consent of the named individual.(F)Notification(i)In general(I)RequirementA State or Tribal court that issues an extreme risk protection order shall notify the Attorney General or the comparable State or Tribal agency, as applicable, of the order as soon as practicable or within a designated period of time.(II)Form and mannerA State or Tribal court shall submit a notification under subclause (I) in an electronic format, in a manner prescribed by the Attorney General or the comparable State or Tribal agency.(ii)Update of databases by State or Tribal agencyAs soon as practicable or within the time period designated by State or Tribal law after receiving a notification under clause (i), the comparable State or Tribal agency shall ensure that the extreme risk protection order is reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.(2)Additional provisionsLegislation described in this subsection may—(A)provide procedures for the termination of an extreme risk protection order;(B)provide procedures for the renewal of an extreme risk protection order;(C)establish burdens and standards of proof for issuance of orders described in paragraph (1) that are substantially similar to or higher than the burdens and standards of proof set forth in that paragraph;(D)limit the individuals who may submit a petition described in paragraph (1), provided that, at a minimum, 1 or more law enforcement officers are authorized to do so; and(E)include any other authorizations or requirements that the State or Tribal authorities determine appropriate.(3)Attorney General responsibilities(A)Manner of submitting notification to Attorney GeneralThe Attorney General shall prescribe the manner in which a State or Tribal court shall submit a notification to the Attorney General under a provision of State or Tribal law that is substantially similar to paragraph (1)(F)(i).(B)Update of databasesAs soon as practicable, and in any event not later than 30 days, after receiving a notification under a provision of State or Tribal law that is substantially similar to paragraph (1)(F)(i), the Attorney General shall ensure that the extreme risk protection order is reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.(4)Annual reportNot later than 1 year after the date on which an eligible entity receives a grant under subsection (b), and annually thereafter for the duration of the grant period, the entity shall submit to the Attorney General a report that includes, with respect to the preceding year—(A)the number of petitions for ex parte extreme risk protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the number denied, disaggregated by—(i)the jurisdiction;(ii)the individual authorized under State or Tribal law to petition for an extreme risk protection order, including the relationship of the individual to the respondent; and(iii)the alleged danger posed by the respondent, including whether the danger involved a risk of suicide, unintentional injury, domestic violence, or other interpersonal violence;(B)the number of petitions for extreme risk protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the number denied, disaggregated by—(i)the jurisdiction;(ii)the individual authorized under State or Tribal law to petition for an extreme risk protection order, including the relationship of the individual to the respondent; and(iii)the alleged danger posed by the respondent, including whether the danger involved a risk of suicide, unintentional injury, domestic violence, or other interpersonal violence;(C)the number of petitions for renewals of extreme risk protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the number denied;(D)the number of cases in which a court imposed a penalty for false reporting or frivolous petitions;(E)demographic data of petitioners, including race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, and English language proficiency, if available;(F)demographic data of respondents, including race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, and English language proficiency, if available; and(G)the number of firearms removed, if available.
Only current Connecticut officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Connecticut statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Connecticut snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Connecticut, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.