BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2208
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 2208 (Kehoe) - As Amended: April 27, 2004
Policy Committee: Health
Vote: 12-5
Judiciary 8-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires group health plans, health insurance, and all
forms of insurance to provide equal coverage to domestic
partners. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires group health plans and health insurers to provide
equal coverage to employers 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 spouse of the
employee or subscriber. (Existing law requires group health
plans and health insurers to offer domestic partner coverage.)
2)Prohibits a health plan or health insurer from offering or
providing coverage for a domestic partner that is not equal to
the coverage provided to the spouse of an employee or
subscriber.
3)Limits the ability of a health plan or health insurer to
verify the status of the domestic partnership to cases in
which it also requests verification of marital status from the
employee whose spouse is provided coverage.
4)Requires every insurance policy issued, amended, delivered, or
renewed in this state to provide coverage for the domestic
partner of an insured or policyholder that is equal to, and
subject to the same terms and conditions as, the coverage
provided to a spouse of an insured or policyholder.
5)Prohibits a policy from offering or providing coverage for a
domestic partner if it is not equal to the coverage provided
AB 2208
Page 2
for the spouse of an insured or policyholder.
6)Deems a health plan contract and a health insurance policy
that is issued, amended, delivered, or renewed on or after
January 1, 2005 to provide coverage for domestic partners that
is equal to the coverage provided to a spouse of an insured or
policyholder.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor and absorbable costs to the Department of Managed Health
Care and Department of Insurance to enforce the provisions of
this bill.
2)No state fiscal impact to CalPERS as it currently provides
health benefits to domestic partners.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . This bill is co-sponsored by Insurance Commissioner
John Garamendi and Equality California. Commissioner
Garamendi argues the bill simply conforms insurance statutes
with AB 205 (Goldberg) from last year, and establishes a
necessary and consistent standard of non-discrimination in
insurance. Equality California 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. The author states this bill would
conform the Health and Safety and Insurance Codes to the
requirements of AB 205 (Goldberg) enacted last year and bring
those provisions in line with requirements made in existing
non-discrimination provisions that ensure that domestic
partners receive the same insurance coverage as spouses.
2)Background . Domestic partners are defined as two adults who
have chosen to share their lives in an intimate and committed
relationship of mutual caring who meet certain conditions,
including being either the same sex, or qualifying for Social
Security benefits for aged individuals. Currently, there are
approximately 25,880 domestic partnerships registered with the
Secretary of State.
AB 205 (Goldberg), Chapter 421, Statutes of 2003 enacted the
"The California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities
Act of 2003," which, among other provisions, required that
AB 2208
Page 3
registered domestic partners have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and are subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, as
spouses.
3)Opposition . The Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) is opposed
to the bill because it believes this bill would force private
businesses to pay for same-sex relationships to the same
degree as marriage. In addition, CRI is concerned that this
bill 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 is wrong.
Analysis Prepared by : Scott Bain / APPR. / (916) 319-2081