BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
161 (Wright)
Hearing Date: 5/26/2009 Amended: 5/21/2009
Consultant: Katie Johnson Policy Vote: Health 11-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 161 would require a health care service plan
contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed
after January 1, 2010, that provides coverage for cancer
chemotherapy treatment to provide coverage for an orally
administered cancer medication no less favorably than
intravenously administered or injected cancer medications
covered under the contract or policy.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
DMHC regulations up to $50 - 150
$5-10$5-10 Special*
and oversight
*Managed Care Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS:
Existing law establishes Medi-Cal, California's version of the
federal Medicaid program, which provides comprehensive health
insurance to low-income persons. Existing law establishes the
Healthy Families Program (HFP), California's version of the
federal Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which
provides low-cost health insurance to children.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of health
care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care
(DMHC). Depending on the complexity of any necessary
regulations, it could cost the DMHC $50,000 - $150,000 to
promulgate regulations to implement this bill. Existing law
provides for the regulation of health insurers by the California
Department of Insurance (CDI). Costs to the CDI to implement
this bill would be minor and absorbable.
This bill would require that health plans and insurers provide
coverage for orally administered anticancer medications no less
favorably than intravenously administered or injected anticancer
medications.
This bill would require health plans and insurers to review the
percentage cost share for oral medications and compare it with
that of intravenous or injected medications. This bill would
then require the health plans and insurers to apply the lower of
the two numbers as the cost-sharing provision for oral
medications. There are currently 38 oral anticancer medications
approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that are used
to treat 52 different types of cancer and there are
approximately 100 new oral
Page 2
SB 161 (Wright)
anticancer medications under development. The most frequently
prescribed oral medications are used to treat breast, ovarian,
endometrial, and uterine cancers.
This bill would define "cost share" as copayment, coinsurance,
or deductible provisions applicable to coverage for oral,
intravenous, or injected anticancer medications.
This bill would provide that these provisions do not apply to a
health plan contract entered into or an insurance policy
purchased by the California Public Employees' Retirement System
(CalPERS).
In a 2009 analysis by the California Health Benefits Research
Program (CHBRP), it was estimated that 97.8 percent of
Californians with health care coverage had some coverage for
oral anticancer medications.
In terms of a publicly funded coverage impact, CHBRP estimates
that premiums associated with the health plans and policies held
by CalPERS would increase at a cost of $282,000 to the state.
However, since this bill specifically exempts CalPERS' plans and
policies, there would be no fiscal effect on the agency and,
therefore, on the state as a result of this mandate.
The report also predicted that would be no fiscal effect on the
Medi-Cal program or the Healthy Families Program because they
already cover oral cancer medications at no charge. To the
extent that there would be an effect on premiums paid by the
Major Risk Medical Insurance Program (MRMIP) and the Access to
Infants and Mothers (AIM) program, each program has regulations
in place that would allow for a cap on enrollment and the
provision of a waitlist in the event that the cost of the
program exceeded available funds. MRMIP and AIM are primarily
funded by prescriber contributions and monies from tobacco
taxes, as provided for by Proposition 99 of 1998. MRMIP also
receives a specified portion of fines and penalties assessed on
health plans licensed by the DMHC.