A proposed bill would replenish a program that provides benefits similar to workers’ compensation for firefighters diagnosed with cancer by assessing a monthly fee against phone lines.

The fee would cost five cents per month and apply to each line provided by local telephone service, commercial mobile radio service, and voice over Internet protocol services. Telephone companies would be required to send the funds to the treasurer’s office each month. The treasurer would then deposit the funds in the firefighters cancer relief fund.

The fund, which was created in 2016, provides wage replacement benefits for firefighters who are diagnosed with cancer as a result of exposure to heat, radiation, or carcinogens in their line of work.

Initially, the bill charged the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) with annually holding a proceeding to determine how large a fee should be assessed against phone lines, both to fund the cancer relief program and to develop and administer an enhanced emergency 9-1-1 program. Funds were to be deposited in the Enhanced 9-1-1 Telecommunications Fund, with one cent per line instead directed to the firefighters cancer relief fund.

However, the funding mechanism was illegal according to the Federal Communication Commission as the Enhanced 9-1-1 program can only be used for the 9-1-1 system. In 2022, a new law changed the funding mechanism, instead requiring each municipality to annually pay $10 for each firefighter within their district to the fund.

A 2023 law also created the Firefighters Cancer Relief Program and charged municipalities with paying compensation and benefits for firefighters with cancer in the same manner and at the same level as state worker’s compensation requirements. Municipalities pay for administration under the program and then seek reimbursement from the treasurer’s office.

As of June 30, 2024, there were roughly $7.7 million dollars in the fund. In fiscal year 2024, the fund paid out one claim for a total of $4,527 under the 2022 law. In 2025, the fund is anticipated to pay out 26 claims.

In an annual report on the program, John Carew, chairman of the Cancer Relief Committee, stated that the committee had received 5 claims that fell under the 2023 law and was aware of roughly 20 more claimants who had not been in contact with the committee. Carew wrote that he was not aware of any claims that had been “positively processed” under the 2023 law.

Rudy Marconi, Ridgefield’s first selectman, wrote in testimony submitted on behalf of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities that the $7 million in the fund is “likely to be insufficient to meet future demand.” He further stated that there had been 15 claims filed with the Workers’ Compensation Commission as of August 2024 and that while the extent of the financial needs of the claims was unknown, it was “fair to assume they are substantial.”

Marconi added that if the funding mechanism for the fund is not changed, municipalities may not be able to continue to pay benefits.

“We are committed to establishing an effective system that provides the necessary benefits for firefighters while being mindful of the cost on property taxpayers. While no municipal official wants to stop any benefits being paid to a firefighter, if the state is unable to reimburse towns, benefits may not be able to be paid. The state should not put municipalities or firefighters in that position.” Marconi stated.

During a February 18 public hearing, the bill mostly drew support, including from groups representing firefighters and municipalities. Writing on behalf of the Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of Connecticut (UPFFA), president Peter Brown stated in testimony that 85% of firefighter cancer programs use surcharges or tax revenue for funding, and five other states use a trust fund model similar to Connecticut’s.

Brown pushed back on the idea the monthly fee would be a burden to Connecticut residents, saying it would cost $2.40 annually for his family, which has four cell phones.

“Even with inflation up and the pressures on the middle class at an all-time high, I believe most families can afford $3 or less per year to assure our firefighters don’t lose access to pay and benefits when they need it most.” Brown wrote.

Telecommunications groups are opposed to the bill.

“Our opposition to this legislation has nothing to do with the merits of creating a cancer relief program for firefighters. Our opposition is solely due to the lack of any connection between wireless services and the programs that would be funded by the revenue generated from the surcharge. No other state in the nation has implemented a tax or surcharge targeted at wireless consumers in order to fund a program wholly unrelated to telecommunications service, and Connecticut should not be the first.” Jake Lestock wrote in testimony submitted on behalf of CITA, a wireless communications trade association.

The New England Connectivity & Telecommunications Association, Inc. compared the proposed fee to the public benefits charge on electric bills, calling it an “unfair hidden tax, funding state-mandated programs without sufficient transparency or oversight which disproportionally impacts consumers, thereby exacerbating their financial burden.”

They further noted that they receive frequent inquiries about various fees attached to their bills, including for 911 operations, and “do not want to draw more ire from customers who feel like they are being “nickel and dimed” when they see an additional fee on their bill.”

There is currently no fiscal note attached to the proposal.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.