Connecticut
What kills us in Connecticut? You might be surprised by number four.
For some of us in Connecticut, falls can be deadly.
But whether they’re babies suffocating in bed with their parents, young people dying in car crashes or elderly people falling and suffering a brain bleed, people are dying in accidents or accidental ways in Connecticut.
In fact, accidents are the fourth leading cause of death in the state, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, following heart disease, cancer and COVID-19.
Dr. Manisha Juthani, commissioner of the state Department of Public Health said accidental deaths “generally relate to falls, motor vehicle traffic deaths and poisoning. Those are sort of the big categories. And poisoning, I’m thinking, is largely opioid overdoses.”
She added that “in the less-than-1-year age group, unintentional suffocation is the predominant cause across the board,” while motor vehicle crashes are No. 1 for those 10 to 64. Then, for those over 65, falls are the leading cause.
Part of the reason so many deaths are caused by accidents in Connecticut may be that it is one of the states with the oldest population.
“This is a state where … by 2030 they’re expecting people 65 and older to be at least 30% of every town,” said Dr. Sowmya Kurtakoti, chief of geriatrics at Hartford Hospital.
She said 37% of people who fall have an injury, and in 2021 there were 460 deaths caused by a fall in Connecticut.
As people live longer, they have more health concerns, such as cardiac issues, “which makes these kinds of falls just that much more fatal,” Kurtakoti said. “So they end up with head injuries, internal bleeding, things like that, that can actually cause them to have a fatal death versus in the past.”
Another concern is chronic health issues, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, which cause “trouble with gait and balance, their ability to walk, and that itself results in falls,” especially in the snow and icy conditions of Connecticut’s winters, she said.
“One of the key things that should happen is I think primary care should be at the forefront to make sure that they’re screening people for falls,” Kurtakoti said. “I think some health systems do better than others in screening people and the screening needs to start not just once a year, because so much happens within a year.”
She said those who are at high risk for falls should be referred to physical therapy programs and community exercise programs “to help maintain their ability to maintain their balance and their gait,” she said.
Vision and hearing problems, such as trouble dealing with bifocals or having tinnitus, can also affect balance, Kurtakoti said.
“Also, if they’re not able to maintain their balance and gait, they need to be provided with the right kind of walker or cane or support,” she said.
Tai chi for balance
One of those community programs is Tai Ji Quan at the Windsor Senior Center. Roy Duff, 78, is taking the class for the second time.

“I take several medications … and several of them affect my balance,” he said. “So when I took this program last season, I noticed an improvement. And I’m taking it again this season and I noticed a significant improvement.”
“And one of the things that I do now that I didn’t do before I took this program was walk, point my feet straight ahead instead of splayed out and walk, lift my feet and walk heel-ball-toe,” Duff said. “If I do that now, I don’t have to grab onto anything if I get up in the middle of the night to visit the restroom.”
He said it’s helping with his golf stance too.
Since she’s taken the class, Ann Dillon, 81, said, “I am steady on my feet. I can walk without wobbling. Anything that requires balance, I can do so much better. This class has been fantastic for me.”

Mary DiPace said it’s helped her with her balance as well. “Even if you have a cane or something to help you with walking, you can take this course because you can sit when you’re doing it, but you would have to do it long term to see real results,” she said.
Kurtakoti said it’s wise to have a geriatrician do a home evaluation to find the lurking dangers.
“They have a rug there that could put them at a higher risk for falls,” she said. “Do they have a very dim light at night? That can put them at a higher risk for falls. How far is it just going from the room to the bathroom?”
Accidents No. 1 for children
“For children, accidents or unintentional deaths is the leading cause of death,” said Dr. Jody Terranova, deputy commissioner of the state health department.
For infants, “co-sleeping and … accidentally suffocating” is the No. 1 cause, she said. A baby might be “on the couch with the mom or dad and got squished or wedged and then suffocated,” she said.
Dr. Kirsten Bechtel, a pediatrician at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital, said the number of deaths caused by suffocation is a stubborn problem.
“We’ve not really made any dent in the numbers despite pediatricians providing this anticipatory guidance to parents and caregivers,” she said. “So many times, parents don’t adhere to this advice because they’re so desperate to get sleep and they feel that their baby sleeps better with them in the bed.

“And then, unfortunately, in rare cases, they wake up to a tragedy where the baby is not breathing or unresponsive and then is later declared dead,” Bechtel said.
In the 1990s, she said, there was a big push to encourage parents to have their baby sleep on its back, not on its stomach and “we made a big dent in sleep-related deaths. But over the past 10 years, here in Connecticut and nationally, all those numbers have stagnated.”
“In Connecticut, every year we lose about 25 children or a future kindergarten class every year because of sleep-related deaths,” Bechtel said. “So it’s the leading cause of preventable deaths in infants.”
Older children die from motor vehicle crashes and poisonings. “We’ve seen also an increase in the number of children that have been unintentionally exposed to fentanyl and have passed away from that in our state,” Terranova said. That can happen if a teenager is experimenting with heroin that is laced with fentanyl. Drownings are another cause.
Accidental gun deaths increase
“We have seen, as the kids get older, the 5 to 10 and then the teenagers, that deaths from gun violence is actually one of the leading causes of accidental death in that age group of children,” Terranova said.
“A number of years ago (that) wasn’t really on the list as one of the top causes of accidental deaths, and that’s become another epidemic that we have seen,” she said.
Kevin Borrup, executive director of the Injury Prevention Center at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, said overall there are not many deaths from injuries among children.
“If you are 14 and under, the numbers are very small of injury-based deaths,” he said. “It’s kids under 1 where the numbers are a little bit higher and a lot of those numbers are these unexplained or sleep-related deaths.”
He said the numbers start to rise at about 10 “and then at 15 to 24 is where you really see these numbers go up around unintentional injury, suicide and homicide. So luckily, for the state of Connecticut, we’re relatively safe.”
Prevention programs
Borrup said the Injury Prevention Center has several programs, including Safe Kids Connecticut, which “works throughout the state on child passenger safety issues, making sure our folks understand the need to keep children appropriately restrained.”
Another, Watch for Me CT, “is a pedestrian and bicycle safety campaign that works to educate folks around how to be safe on our roads, both drivers and pedestrians and cyclists,” Borrup said.
“We know that in many of our urban centers, there is a big issue with violence and firearm violence,” he said.
“So we also engage in programs like our hospital-based violence-intervention program, where we work with both Hartford Hospital, Trinity Health in the city of Hartford and Compass Youth Collaborative …,” Borrup said. “Mothers United Against Violence, to intervene with folks who are at risk or we’ve been shot, work to ensure that they’re not in danger again.”
Ed Stannard can be reached at estannard@courant.com.
Connecticut
Opinion: CT needs a climate superfund, and it needs one now
The principle behind the Climate Superfund is simple: we must make fossil fuel companies pay for the climate damage they have created, rather than leaving those costs to our neighbors and families.
Without a Climate Superfund, Connecticut will continue to build financial burdens from climate change, including disaster relief, infrastructure repairs, and public health costs that will disproportionately impact low-income and vulnerable communities.
Critics of the Climate Superfund often raise the concern: won’t the fee to fossil fuel companies simply be passed along to residents in the form of higher energy bills? That’s an important question to address, and one that several economists have already answered.
As Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz explained in a letter to New York’s governor, the Climate Superfund fee is based on companies’ past pollution, not their current production. That means it’s considered a fixed cost, which is something oil companies can’t simply pass on to consumers without risking their profits. In other words, this policy makes polluters pay their fair share for the damage they’ve already done without raising gas prices for the rest of us.
Additionally, the global prices of crude oil is set through supply and demand in a global market. Even large fossil fuel companies cannot raise pump prices in Connecticut without losing market competitiveness or incentivizing consumers to change behavior.
In New York, the Climate Superfund bill will raise $3 billion annually over 25 years without increasing energy costs to residents. When similar settlements have occurred, including the federal Superfund law for toxic waste, there was no evidence of increased costs for customers.
The Climate Superfund will advance clean, affordable energy in Connecticut. Many households, especially in low-income communities, already spend a disproportionately large share of their income on utilities. A superfund can increase the state’s capacity for financial aid, such as utility assistance to alleviate energy poverty. Additionally, if funds from the climate superfund are directed towards retrofits, weatherization, and clean heating technology in low-income communities, this could help lower long-term energy costs and reduce energy burdens.
The Climate Superfund should be designed to provide stronger governance in how funds should be spent including prioritized funding for environmental justice neighborhoods and community engagement in project selection. This helps advance “energy democracy,” where communities have a voice in how funds are spent and can shape their local energy systems.
Some communities in Connecticut are disproportionately impacted by sea-level rise, flooding, heat waves, and storm damage, including those communities with older infrastructure, coastal neighborhoods, and low-income populations. A Climate Superfund recognizes these inequities and seeks to remediate historic harms by directing resources to mitigation, adaptation, and resilience projects that keep people safe and help our communities thrive.
Opponents to the Climate Superfund believe that this is a tax that will impact consumers and businesses. However, these claims are based on the assumption that firms can freely pass these costs onto energy users. This has not been shown in existing superfund models.
Additionally, some critics argue that this bill is not constitutional since the government cannot retroactively charge companies after the fact. However, long-standing ‘polluter pays’ principles in U.S. law have been upheld in court, including the federal superfund law (CERCLA) that has followed this model for toxic waste sites since the 1980s. Additionally, the superfund is not a ‘punishment,’ but rather a cost recovery mechanism to fix public harms from climate damages, and it is proportional based on each company’s share of historic greenhouse gas emissions.
Connecticut is already paying for climate change through storm and flood costs, infrastructure damage, and public health impacts like asthma. These costs fall most heavily on taxpayers, especially households that already face high financial burdens.
The Climate Superfund provides an alternative to make polluters pay, not residents. If Connecticut acts now by passing this state legislation, we can build more climate-resilient towns and cities without increasing environmental burdens to those that can least afford them.
Join our efforts by signing our petition at act.sierraclub.org and urge our state leaders to pass a Climate Superfund.
Sydney Collins is an environmental activist in New Haven.
–
Connecticut
CT officials focus on tax cuts as new election cycle starts
Republicans have staunchly defended unprecedented state efforts in recent years to shrink Connecticut’s massive legacy of pension debt, even though it’s leached billions from education, health care and other core programs in the process.
But the GOP has begun to modify that stance, willing to scale back that effort if — and only if — those dollars go back to middle-class households in the form of big tax cuts.
Citing high energy costs, inflation above federal targets and Congress cutting deeply into human services, Republicans say Connecticut families need more help badly now, but not through new state programs.
And with many Democrats already renewing their push for a new child-based income tax cut and the next state election less than 12 months away, the 2026 General Assembly session could be swamped with tax-cutting ideas.
GOP: CT households must benefit directly from big surpluses
“For my constituents, it’s about over-taxation,” House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, said during a floor debate last month. “We are seeing billions and billions of dollars flow into our coffers.”
The GOP leader was referring to the aggressive series of state budget caps that have generated unprecedented surpluses averaging more than $1.8 billion, or 8% to 9% of the General Fund, every year since 2017. About $4 billion from those bounties has been used to bolster budget reserves, but the bulk, about $10 billion, has been dedicated to whittling down the massive pension debt Connecticut amassed over seven decades prior to 2011.
The primary beneficiaries of those payments, Candelora said, involve tens of thousands of state employees, municipal teachers and retirees from those two fields.
“But what about the other 3.4 million people, the people that are telling us we can’t afford to continue to pay property taxes in the state of Connecticut?” he added. “I think we need to start looking at the people that are slipping into poverty, slipping into need, because everything in the state of Connecticut has become unaffordable.”
In late October, House Republicans called for a $700 increase in the state income tax credit that covers a portion of households’ municipal property tax bills.
With the potential to restore $500 million annually, all to the middle class, it would rival the 2023 income tax cuts ordered by Gov. Ned Lamont and the Democratic-controlled General Assembly for the most generous relief package in state history.
But it also would mean this fiscal year’s projected surplus — another big windfall projected at $2 billion — would be about 25% smaller. That means less to pay down pension debt, which still exceeds $33 billion, according to Lamont’s budget office, and isn’t projected to be eliminated until the mid-2040s.
But Candelora said Connecticut could afford a big tax cut and still make big annual inroads on its debt problem. The $10 billion in surplus funds its deposited into the pensions since 2020 were in addition to the more than $3 billion in required payments Connecticut makes annually through regular budgeting. Prior to 2020, Connecticut never had contributed surplus to its pensions.
And since Lamont and his fellow Democrats in the legislature already have diverted some funds away from surplus and into new spending, why couldn’t Republicans deflect some to cut taxes on households in need, the North Branford lawmaker added.
Lamont and Democrats dedicated $300 million from last fiscal year’s surplus to launch a new program to expand affordable child care. That initiative also has a claim on a portion of future surpluses.
And despite repeated warnings that Medicaid costs were exploding, Democrats underfunded the program by $284 million last fiscal year, effectively leaving the problem to be solved using surplus dollars.
“I think I’ve been dragged into this conversation unwillingly by the Democrats,” Candelora added.
House Republicans likely won’t be alone in supporting tax cuts.
Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, has “serious concerns” about redirecting any funds away from paying down a pension debt, but “if we’re going to do anything [else] with those funds … it needs to be returned to [households] in the form of tax relief.”
The GOP’s two gubernatorial contenders, former New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart and state Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich, both agreed Connecticut can help its middle class and save diligently to reduce debt.
Given the huge budget surpluses Connecticut has reported since 2017, “it’s hard to not ask the question: Are we being overtaxed?” Stewart said.
And while she praised the bipartisan legislative effort eight years ago that helped Connecticut save more, stop tax hikes, and begin reducing debt, the former mayor added it’s still too expensive for many to live here.
“I see that every day,” she added. “Often times, both parents are working and they’re just scrounging by.”
“At some point, middle-class taxpayers are the forgotten people of Connecticut,” Fazio said, adding relief would provide an economic assist as well. “All the evidence suggests that income tax cuts spur more economic growth than other forms of tax cuts.”
Democrats have their own tax-cutting ideas
Republicans also won’t be the only ones putting tax-cut proposals on the table.
Many progressive and moderate Democrats in the General Assembly have been pushing for the past four years to create a permanent state income tax credit for low- and middle-income households with children.
The most popular plan, raised back in 2021 by then-Rep. Sean Scanlon, a Guilford Democrat who now serves as state comptroller, would provide $600 per child, up to $1,800 per household.
The United Way of Connecticut, another leader in the fight for a state child tax credit, vowed to continue the battle in September when it released its latest affordability analysis, showing a record-high 581,000 Connecticut households, about 40%, couldn’t afford a basic “survival” budget.
The United Way estimates it cost a family of four — two parents and two children — $116,000 to cover basic survival needs, including food, housing, utilities, child and health care and transportation in 2023.
Lamont’s budget spokesman, Chris Collibee, said the governor “will listen to any ideas that reduce taxes, increase taxpayers and make our state a more attractive place to live and work.”
Rep. Maria Horn, D-Salisbury, co-chairwoman of the tax-writing Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, said this week she anticipates many state tax relief proposals aimed at the middle class in the next session, especially since the GOP-led Congress focused the bulk of federal tax cuts it ordered last July on the nation’s wealthiest households.
“That creates a structure where the very wealthy are receiving a tax benefit and the middle and less privileged classes are not,” she said.
Can CT afford to cut taxes and bolster human services?
But both Horn and House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, warn frequently that any tax cuts must be sustainable. In other words, don’t promise so much relief it must be scaled back one year later if the economy slips.
And state legislators are more worried about budget stability now than perhaps any other time since they installed new caps eight years ago. That’s because Congress ordered more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and other human service programs to help finance federal tax relief.
Connecticut expects to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in annual federal assistance, although the bulk of those cutbacks likely won’t take effect until 2027 or 2028.
Rep. Josh Elliott of Hamden, a progressive who is challenging Lamont for the 2026 Democratic gubernatorial nomination, said many lawmakers still want to put more dollars directly into working families’ hands.
But Elliott, a founder of the legislature’s Tax Equity Caucus, added tax relief is a good tool — but not the only one — to help families.
It does a family little good to save $700 on state income taxes if Connecticut cuts municipal aid so much that same household faces an $800 increase in town property taxes.
Similarly, it state budget policies drive up community college tuition, slash rental and winter energy assistance and ignore rising health insurance costs, then tax cuts help little or not at all.
“It’s not one or the other,” Elliott said. “It seems that there’s a hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans that they are only willing to affect [costs] with tax cuts.”
Connecticut
Hunter Biden to face Connecticut bar suspension hearing this month
-
News17 hours agoTrump threatens strikes on any country he claims makes drugs for US
-
Politics16 hours agoTrump rips Somali community as federal agents reportedly eye Minnesota enforcement sweep
-
World17 hours agoHonduras election council member accuses colleague of ‘intimidation’
-
Technology6 days agoNew scam sends fake Microsoft 365 login pages
-
Politics6 days agoRep. Swalwell’s suit alleges abuse of power, adds to scrutiny of Trump official’s mortgage probes
-
Business1 week agoStruggling Six Flags names new CEO. What does that mean for Knott’s and Magic Mountain?
-
Ohio1 week agoSnow set to surge across Northeast Ohio, threatening Thanksgiving travel
-
News7 days ago2 National Guard members wounded in ‘targeted’ attack in D.C., authorities say