BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 578
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 578 (Dickinson)
          As Amended  May 24, 2013
          Majority vote 

           HEALTH              11-6        APPROPRIATIONS      12-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Pan, Ammiano, Atkins,     |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra,         |
          |     |Bonilla, Bonta, Chesbro,  |     |Bradford,                 |
          |     |Gomez, Gordon, Nazarian,  |     |Ian Calderon, Campos,     |
          |     |V. Manuel P�rez,          |     |Eggman, Gomez, Hall,      |
          |     |Wieckowski                |     |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk,      |
          |     |                          |     |Weber                     |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Logue, Maienschein,       |Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow,          |
          |     |Mansoor, Nestande,        |     |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner  |
          |     |Wagner, Wilk              |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Establishes a public disclosure and hearing process  
          for an entity applying for the first time for licensure as a  
          health care service plan or a specialized health care service  
          plan at the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) and a  
          certificate of authority to transact health insurance at the  
          California Department of Insurance (CDI).  Specifically,  this  
          bill  :  

          1)Requires the DMHC Director (Director) or the Insurance  
            Commissioner (IC) to publish a notice, upon receiving an  
            application, in one or more newspapers of general circulation  
            in the proposed plan's service area, describing the name of  
            the applicant, the nature of the application, and the date of  
            receipt of the application.  

          2)Requires the notice to indicate that the Director or IC is  
            soliciting public comments and may hold a public hearing on  
            the application.  Requires the DMHC or CDI to allow comments  
            to be submitted through its Internet Web site.  Requires the  
            Director to require the plan to publish a written notice  
            concerning the application pursuant to conditions imposed by  
            the Director or IC.

          3)Requires prior to approving the application, the Director or  








                                                                  AB 578
                                                                  Page  2


            CDI to solicit, review and consider public comments in written  
            form and to hold at least one public hearing if comments are  
            received concerning the application.  Whenever comments  
            regarding two or more pending applications are received, the  
            Director or CDI may hold one consolidated hearing that  
            considers each application independently.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, likely costs of less than $125,000 between CDI and  
          DMHC, depending on the number and complexity of new applications  
          and the public comments generated.

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, existing law makes no  
          provisions to conduct any process allowing the public or any  
          stakeholder group to provide input for consideration when  
          reviewing an application for health insurance licensure.  The  
          author asserts that it is essential that state law be clear that  
          the public and others have opportunities to comment on any  
          license application.  The author states that upon full  
          implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable  
          Care Act, millions more Californians will obtain health care  
          coverage.  Many of these Californians will obtain publicly  
          funded coverage through Medi-Cal, or in the private market  
          through Covered California where tax credits and public  
          subsidies will make coverage affordable.  With the impending  
          Medi-Cal expansion and operation of Covered California (formerly  
          the California Health Benefit Exchange), as well as the ongoing  
          shift of Medi-Cal enrollees away from fee-for-service and into  
          managed care, the marketplace for managed care plans is  
          significantly growing making it an opportune time for entities  
          to apply for Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975  
          (Knox-Keene Act) licensure and compete for new managed care  
          business.

          The author believes that since the public will subsidize  
          coverage for so many in the growing managed care market, the  
          public has a vested interest in plans who aim to become  
          Knox-Keene Act licensed plans.  Despite this vested interest,  
          the licensure process is nearly closed to the public, raising  
          serious concerns regarding a lack of transparency.  Current law  
          does not provide for any public notice upon the submission of a  
          Knox-Keene Act license application to DMHC, nor are there any  
          provisions that require DMHC to publicly hear or solicit public  
          input during the licensure review process.  The author also  








                                                                  AB 578
                                                                  Page  3


          raises concerns that the DMHC is authorized to grant  
          confidentiality to Knox-Keene Act license applicants, denying  
          the public any opportunity to truly evaluate the methods by  
          which an applicant will provide health care benefits to its  
          enrollees.  Further, the author states that considering that  
          managed care plans stand to gain millions of new enrollees who  
          will be able to afford coverage through public subsidy, the  
          public should be afforded a process by which it can rightfully  
          express concerns or commentary to DMHC regarding the Knox-Keene  
          Act licensure applicants it evaluates.

          The California Nurses Association and Alameda County Supervisor  
          Wilma Chan support this bill.  Consumer Watchdog indicates with  
          the impending federal requirement that all Californians purchase  
          health coverage, it is more important than ever that the  
          licensing process ensures a high level of scrutiny of any entity  
          seeking to sell policies in California.  Consumer Watchdog  
          believes this bill is a straightforward step in the direction of  
          transparency that will allow Californians to work with the DMHC  
          to ensure that companies entering the California market are  
          prepared to meet the requirements of the Knox-Keene Act.   
          California Watchdog states that it is much better for California  
          patients and consumers, in general, that the companies providing  
          health coverage face the light of day before receiving their  
          license than potentially having to contend with problems  
          stemming from insufficiently reviewed licensees after damage has  
          been done.  The Center for Public Interest supports this bill  
          because it will create transparency in the process by which DMHC  
          evaluates and approves applicants for Knox-Keene licensure.

          The California Association of Health Plans and the California  
          Association of Physician Groups oppose this bill because they  
          believe it will increase costs and slow down the process for  
          licensing health insurance in California.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Teri Boughton / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097  



                                                                FN: 0000816











                                                                  AB 578
                                                                  Page  4