BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2208|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2208
Author: Kehoe (D), et al
Amended: 8/16/04 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE : 6-3, 6/16/04
AYES: Speier, Escutia, Figueroa, Ortiz, Scott, Soto
NOES: Morrow, Denham, Oller
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 6/29/04
AYES: Escutia, Cedillo, Ducheny, Kuehl, Sher
NOES: Ackerman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Morrow
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 46-31, 5/20/04 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Health care and insurance benefits: domestic
partners
SOURCE : Insurance Commissioner
Equality California
DIGEST : This bill enacts the California Insurance
Equality Act which requires group health plans, health
insurance, and all forms of insurance to provide equal
coverage to registered domestic partners.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/16/04 clarify that the "terms
and conditions" governing health care insurance or service
CONTINUED
AB 2208
Page
2
plan that must be provided equally to a spouse and a
registered domestic partner of an employee do not include
instances of differential treatment of domestic partners
and spouses under federal law. Under certain federal laws,
some benefits that are provided to spouses could not be
provided to domestic partners, regardless of registration.
Thus, terms and conditions of health care coverage that
would be affected by these federal laws would not be within
the scope of this bill. The amendments clearly state this
intent.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care
Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and
regulation of health care service plans and makes a
violation of the act's provisions a crime. Existing law
also provides for the regulation of health insurers and all
other forms of insurance by the Department of Insurance.
Under existing law, health care service plans and health
insurers are required to offer coverage for the registered
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 those
persons.
This bill:
1.Requires group health care service plans and health
insurance policies to provide equal coverage to the
registered domestic partner of an employee or subscriber
with the same terms and conditions that are provided to a
spouse of an employee or subscriber if that plan or
policy offers spousal benefits. Precludes plans and
policies from offering or providing coverage to a
registered domestic partner that is not equal to that
offered or provided to the spouse of an employee or
subscriber.
2.Allows health care service plans and health insurance
policies to require verification of a registered domestic
partnership and its termination only if it also requests
verification of marital status and notification of the
dissolution of the marriage.
3.Requires insurance policies to provide coverage for
AB 2208
Page
3
registered domestic partners that are equal to the
coverage provided to spouses and precludes a policy from
offering to provide coverage for a registered domestic
partner if that coverage is not equal to that offered to
a spouse.
4.Applies only to plans or policies issued, amended,
delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2005.
5.Replaces "dependent" with "spouse" when referring to
health benefits.
6.Renames a policy of "disability" insurance to a policy of
"health" insurance.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/16/04)
Insurance Commissioner (co-source)
Equality California (co-source)
Aids Project Los Angeles Metropolitan Community Church, Los
Angeles
American Civil Liberties Union
Anti-Defamation League
Being Alive Los Angeles, Inc.
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Labor Federation
California Medical Association
California National Organization for Women
California Nurses Association
California Retired Teachers Association
California Schools Employees Association
California State Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Employment Law Center
Kaiser Hospital
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Office of the Attorney General
Our Family Coalition
Planned Parenthood
AB 2208
Page
4
San Francisco Aids Foundation
Southern California Regional Chapter of Pride at Work
Stonewall Democratic Club of Greater Sacramento
The Legal Aid Society
The San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender
Community Center Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbian
and Gays, Ventura County
Transgender Law Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/16/04)
Campaign for California Families
Capitol Resource Institute
Concerned Women for America
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
this bill conforms provisions in the Health and Safety and
Insurance Codes made in AB 205 (Goldberg), Chapter 421,
Statutes of 2003. It also brings those provisions in line
with requirements made in existing non-discrimination
provisions that ensure that domestic partners receive the
same insurance coverage and spouses.
This bill is cosponsored by Insurance Commissioner John
Garamendi, who states this bill simply conforms insurance
statutes with AB 205 and establishes a necessary and
consistent standard of non-discrimination in insurance.
Equality California, the other cosponsor of this bill,
suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) Californians are not always covered under their
partners' policies in the same way spouses are covered. As
a result, LGBT Californians are being denied benefits,
paying discriminatory higher premiums, or being denied
coverage. The California National Organization of Women
agrees that this bill would clarify the law to afford
domestic partners equal insurance coverage.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Capitol Resource Institute
(CRI) is opposed to this bill because they believe it would
force private businesses to pay for same-sex relationships
to the same degree as marriage, even if they have religious
or moral convictions against it. In addition, CRI is
concerned that this clarification in the law will result in
higher employer costs. CRI further suggests that this bill
AB 2208
Page
5
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez,
Chu, Cohn, Corbett, Correa, Diaz, Dutra, Dymally,
Firebaugh, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jerome Horton,
Jackson, Kehoe, Koretz, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu,
Longville, Lowenthal, Montanez, Mullin, Nakano, Nation,
Negrete McLeod, Parra, Pavley, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas,
Salinas, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wesson, Wiggins,
Wolk, Yee, Nunez
NOES: Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Bogh, Campbell, Cogdill,
Cox, Daucher, Dutton, Harman, Haynes, Shirley Horton,
Houston, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Maddox,
Maldonado, Matthews, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi,
Pacheco, Plescia, Richman, Runner, Samuelian, Spitzer,
Strickland, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Garcia, Maze, Oropeza
DLW:nl 8/17/04 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****