BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Martha M. Escutia, Chair
2003-2004 Regular Session
AB 2208 A
Assembly Member Kehoe B
As Amended April 27, 2004
Hearing Date: June 29, 2004 2
Health and Safety Code; Insurance Code 2
GMO:cjt 0
8
SUBJECT
Domestic Partnerships: Insurance Benefits
DESCRIPTION
The bill would:
conform existing law that extends health benefits to
domestic partners to the requirements of the Domestic
Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, to
ensure that registered domestic partners of employees and
subscribers are provided insurance coverage to the same
extent and under the same terms and conditions as spouses
of employees and subscribers, rather than as dependents;
require 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;
preclude the offer of a policy that provides coverage for
a domestic partner if it is not equal to that offered to
a spouse of an insured or policyholder
BACKGROUND
AB 25 (Migden, Chap. 893, Stats. 2001) established domestic
partnerships in the state and conferred certain rights to
registered domestic partners. That bill also required a
group health service plan and a policy of disability
insurance that provides medical, hospital or surgical
expenses benefits to offer coverage to employers and
guaranteed associations for the domestic partner of an
(more)
AB 2208 (Kehoe)
Page 2
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.
Last year, AB 205 (Goldberg, Ch. 421, Stats. 2003) recast
AB 25 and expanded the rights of registered domestic
partners in areas of property ownership, inheritance
rights, family relationships, and for the most part
provided rights to domestic partners that are equal to
those conferred on spouses.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the Domestic Partner Rights and
Responsibilities Act, delineates the rights and
responsibilities of registered domestic partners. [Family
Code
Sec. 297.5.]
Existing law requires group health care service plans and
group health insurance policies that provide medical,
hospital and surgical expense benefits to provide coverage
to domestic partners of employees, subscribers or
policyholders to the same extent and under the same terms
and conditions as are provided to spouses of employees,
subscribers or policyholders. [Ins. Code Sec. 10121.7.]
Existing law provides that the employer may require
evidence of the registration of the domestic partnership or
notice of its termination.
This bill would require a health care service plan and a
health insurance policy to provide to the domestic partner
of an employee or subscriber the same coverage it provides
to the spouse of an employee or subscriber and would
prohibit a plan or policy from offering or providing
coverage to a domestic partner that is not equal to the
coverage provided to the spouse of an employee or
subscriber.
This bill would require that every policy issued, amended,
delivered, or renewed in the state provide coverage for the
domestic partner of the insured or policyholder that is
equal to, and subject to the same terms and conditions as
coverage provided to the spouse of an insured or
AB 2208 (Kehoe)
Page 3
policyholder.
This bill would deem that a policy that is issued, amended,
delivered, or renewed in this state on or after January 1,
2005 provides coverage for domestic partners that is equal
to the coverage provided to a spouse of an insured or
policyholder.
COMMENT
1. Need for the bill
The Insurance Commissioner and Equality California are
the co-sponsors of AB 2208.
The Commissioner, John Garamendi, contends that AB 2208
merely conforms insurance statutes to AB 205 and
establishes a necessary and consistent standard of
non-discrimination in insurance.
Equality California, on the other hand, argues that
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents of the
state are not always covered under their partner's
insurance policies in the same way spouses are covered.
Thus, these domestic partners are denied benefits, pay
higher premiums, or are denied coverage. "[AB 2208] 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."
2. Health insurance coverage equalized, as would all
other types of insurance
Current law already provides equal health plan or health
insurance coverage to domestic partners, but as
dependents of the employee, subscriber, or policyholders.
This bill would replace the reference to "dependent"
with "spouse," thus conforming these provisions to AB
205, which gave registered domestic partners rights
identical to those of spouses.
Further, this bill would make all types of insurance
(car, house, homeowner's, life) that provides coverage to
a spouse available to registered domestic partners and
AB 2208 (Kehoe)
Page 4
would require the policy issuers to offer no less than
the same coverage to domestic partners as they give to
spouses. This provision would apply to all policies
issued, amended, renewed or delivered in this state on or
after January 1, 2005.
This is significant because in some cases, such as life
insurance, the coverages offered to a spouse are greater
than the coverages offered to a dependent. Presumably,
the enrollee or the enrollee's employer would pay the
differences in any additional coverage costs.
AB 2208 would also deem all policies issued, renewed,
amended or delivered on or after January 1, 2005 to
contain provisions consistent with this bill with respect
to coverage provided to a registered domestic partner.
In other words, any interpretation of a policy that would
deny coverage to a domestic partner because the domestic
partner is not a named "spouse" would be invalid, even
though those policies were issued pre-January 1, 2005, if
the policy is renewed or amended. Most insurance
policies relating to automobiles, or other property are
renewed on an annual or semi-annual basis, so that
eventually, all insurance policies would have to comply
with this general rule.
3. Ask for verification of registration or termination
only if married insureds or subscribers are also asked
Current law provides that a health care service plan or
health insurance policy issuer may require that the
insured or subscriber verify the status of the domestic
partnership. AB 2208 would allow this inquiry only if
the employer asks a married employee to provide the same
information.
4. Opposition arguments
The Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) opposes AB 2208,
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
AB 2208 (Kehoe)
Page 5
convictions against it. CRI further suggests that this
bill is disrespectful and intolerant of those who believe
homosexuality is wrong.
Other opponents point to increased health risks because
of same-sex relationships and that the bill would cause
increased costs to insurers and subscribers.
5. Technical amendments
The term "domestic partner" should be amended to
"registered domestic partner" in order to conform with
both AB 25 and AB 205.
The author also wishes to add the following as
co-authors: Senators Romero, Speier, and Soto and
Assembly Member Levine.
Support: California Nurses Association; California
Commission on the Status of
Women; Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund;
National Center
for Lesbian Rights; Office of the Attorney General;
American Civil
Liberties Union; California Schools Employees
Association; California
National Organization for Women; California Labor
Federation; Anti-
Defamation League; Transgender Law Center;
California Medical
Association; Our Family Coalition; Mexican American
Legal Defense
and Educational Fund; The San Francisco Lesbian Gay
Bisexual
Transgender Community Center; Parents, Families, and
Friends of
Lesbian and Gays, Ventura County; San Francisco Aids
Foundation;
Being Alive Los Angeles, Inc.; Aids Project Los
Angeles; Metropolitan
Community Church, Los Angeles; Southern California
Regional
Chapter of Pride at Work; California Teachers
Association; Stonewall
Democratic Club of Greater Sacramento; The Legal Aid
AB 2208 (Kehoe)
Page 6
Society;
California Retired Teachers Association; California
State Employees
Association; one individual
Opposition: Campaign for California Families; Capitol
Resource Institute;
Concerned Women for America
HISTORY
Source: Insurance Commissioner and Equality California
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: See Background AB 25 (Migden, Ch. 893,
Stats. 2001)
See Background AB 205 (Goldberg, Ch.
421,Stats. 2003
Prior Vote: Asm. L. Gov. (Ayes 8 , Noes 3 )
Asm. Appr. (Ayes 16, Noes 4)
Asm. Flr. (Ayes 46, Noes 31)
**************