BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2208
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
AB 2208 (Kehoe) - As Amended: April 12, 2004
SUBJECT : HEALTH CARE AND INSURANCE BENEFITS: DOMESTIC PARTNERS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD EXISTING LAW EXTENDING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
TO DOMESTIC PARTNERS OF EMPLOYEES BE CONFORMED TO AB 205 OF 2003
SO THAT DOMESTIC PARTNERS ARE PROVIDED INSURANCE COVERAGE EQUAL
TO THAT PROVIDED TO SPOUSES OF EMPLOYEES?
SYNOPSIS
This measure, co-sponsored by Insurance Commissioner John
Garamendi and Equality California, conforms existing law
extending health care benefits to domestic partners to the
requirements of AB 205 (Goldberg), Chap. 421, Stats. of 2003.
The measure brings existing non-discrimination provisions in the
Health and Safety Code and Insurance Code in line with AB 205 to
ensure domestic partners of employees and subscribers are
provided insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions
as spouses of employees and subscribers rather than as
dependents as the law currently treats them. The bill also
requires insurance policies, such as automobile, life or
homeowner's insurance, to provide coverage for domestic partners
that is equal to the coverage provided to spouses and precludes
a policy from offering to provide coverage for a domestic
partner if that coverage is not equal to that offered to a
spouse. Supporters argue the measure is necessary to confirm
that group health care service plans and health insurance
policies must provide coverage to domestic partners of employees
equal to that provided to spouses of employees. Opponents argue
that the bill will result in higher employer costs and force
employers to recognize domestic partnerships to the same extent
as marriage, despite religious or moral convictions against it.
The analysis contains suggested technical amendments.
SUMMARY : Enacts the California Insurance Equity for All
Families Act. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires group health care service plans and health insurance
policies to provide coverage to the domestic partner of an
employee or subscriber equal to that provided to a spouse of
AB 2208
Page 2
an employee or subscriber if that plan or policy offers
spousal benefits.
2)Precludes plans and policies from offering or providing
coverage to a domestic partner that is not equal to that
offered or provided to the spouse of an employee or
subscriber.
3)Allows health care service plans and health insurance policies
to require verification of a domestic partnership only if it
also requests verification of marital status.
4)Requires insurance policies, such as automobile, life or
homeowner's insurance, to provide coverage for domestic
partners that is equal to the coverage provided to spouses and
precludes a policy from offering to provide coverage for a
domestic partner if that coverage is not equal to that offered
to a spouse.
5)Applies only to plans or policies issued, amended, delivered,
or renewed on or after January 1, 2005.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires group health insurance plans and disability insurance
policies to offer coverage to employers or guaranteed
associations, for the domestic partner of an employee or
subscriber to the same extent and subject to the same terms
and conditions as provided to a dependent of the employee or
subscriber. (Health and Safety Code section 1374.58 and
Insurance Code section 10121.7.)
2)Provides domestic partners the same rights, protections,
benefits, responsibilities, obligations, and duties as are
guaranteed to and imposed upon spouses. (Family Code section
297.5.)
FISCAL EFFECT : The bill as currently in print is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS : This measure was approved by the Assembly Health
Committee on March 30, 2004 by a vote of 12-5. In support of
the bill, the author writes "The purpose of AB 2208 is to
clarify that group health care service plans and health
insurance policies must provide equal coverage to domestic
AB 2208
Page 3
partners. Although California law already requires that
domestic partners and spouses must be treated equally for
insurance purposes, domestic partners are often unlawfully
denied benefits, coverage, or are required to pay discriminatory
higher premiums. This bill will prohibit plans and policies from
offering or providing coverage to a domestic partner that is not
equal to that offered or provided to the spouse of an employee
or subscriber. Specifically, AB 2208 provides that the domestic
partner of an employee or subscriber must be provided with the
same benefits, on the same terms and conditions, that are
provided to a spouse of an employee or subscriber if that plan
or policy offers spousal benefits."
Brief Background on Relevant Legal Rights Conferred on
Registered Domestic Partners by AB 25 (Migden). As the author
notes above, AB 25 (Migden) Chap. 893, Stats. of 2001, requires
a group health care service plan and a policy of disability
insurance that provides hospital, medical, or surgical expense
benefits to offer coverage to employers and guaranteed
associations for a domestic partner of an employee, subscriber,
insured, or policyholder to the same extent, and subject to the
same terms and conditions, as provided to a dependent of an
employee, subscriber, insured, or policyholder. This bill
deletes "dependent" and replaces it with "spouse," ensuring that
domestic partners of employees or subscribers are provided the
same health care coverage as that provided to spouses of
employees or subscribers.
AB 25 also permitted a health care service plan or policy of
group disability insurance to verify the status of the domestic
partnership by requiring that the employee provide to the plan
or insurer a copy of a valid Declaration of Domestic Partnership
filed with the Secretary of State. Under AB 25, the plan or
insurer may also require that the employee or insured notify the
plan or insurer upon the termination of the domestic
partnership. This bill allows health care service plans and
health insurance policies to require verification of a domestic
partnership only if it also requests verification of marital
status and notification of dissolution from its employees with
covered spouses.
Technical Amendments Needed. As mentioned above, this bill
allows health care service plans and health insurance policies
to require verification of a domestic partnership only if it
also requests verification of marital status and notification of
AB 2208
Page 4
dissolution from its employees with covered spouses. In order
to fully carry out this objective, the bill should be amended as
follows:
Revise (d)(2) on page 3, line 13 to read: (2) Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), a health care service plan may require the
information described in that paragraph only if it also requests
verification from the employee or subscriber whose spouse is
provided coverage of marital status and notification of its
dissolution of the marriage.
Revise (d)(2) on page 5, line 1 to read: (2) Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), a policy may require the information described in
that paragraph only if it also requests verification from the
employee, insured, or policyholder whose spouse is provided
coverage of marital status and notification of its dissolution
of the marriage.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, a
co-sponsor of the measure, states that the bill simply conforms
insurance statutes to AB 205 and establishes a necessary and
consistent standard of non-discrimination in insurance.
Equality California, also a co-sponsor of the bill, suggests
that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Californians
are not always covered under their partner's insurance policies
in the same way spouses are covered. As a result, LGBT
Californians are denied benefits, pay higher premiums, or are
denied coverage. Equality California writes that the bill "will
establish a necessary and consistent standard of
non-discrimination in insurance in conformance with AB 205 by
ensuring that insurance companies treat domestic partners in the
same manner as spouses in the purchase of insurance." The
California Nurses Association also supports the measure, stating
that it helps "to end discrimination against domestic partners
in California."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Capitol Resource Institute (CRI)
opposes the measure, arguing that it would force private
businesses to pay for same-sex relationships to the same degree
as marriage. In addition, CRI is concerned that this
clarification in the law will result in higher employer costs
and force employers to recognize domestic partnerships to the
same degree as marriage, despite religious or moral convictions
against it. CRI further suggests that this bill is
disrespectful and intolerant of those who believe homosexuality
AB 2208
Page 5
is wrong. Concerned Women for America writes that "same-sex
relationships involve increased health risks" and the bill will
therefore result in increased costs to insurers and subscribers.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Equality California (co-sponsor)
Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi (co-sponsor)
American Civil Liberties Union
Anti-Defamation League
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Department of Justice
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Medical Association
California National Organization of Women
California Nurses Association
California School Employees Association
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Lamda Letters Project
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Office of the Attorney General
Our Family Coalition
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG),
Ventura County
San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center
Transgender Law Center
Opposition
Capitol Resource Institute
Concerned Women for America
Analysis Prepared by : Saskia Kim / JUD. / (916) 319-2334