BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 880 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 880 (Gomez) As Amended June 24, 2013 2/3 vote. Urgency HEALTH 13-5 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Pan, Ammiano, Atkins, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |Bonilla, Bonta, Chesbro, | |Bradford, | | |Gomez, | |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | |Roger Hernández, | |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, | | |Lowenthal, Mitchell, | |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk, | | |Nazarian, V. Manuel | |Weber | | |Pérez, Wieckowski | | | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Maienschein, Mansoor, |Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, | | |Nestande, Wagner, Wilk | |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Creates the Employer Responsibility for Medi-Cal Cost of Employees Act of 2013 (Act). Contains an urgency clause in order to become effective immediately. Specifically, this bill : 1)Requires large employers, employing 500 or more employees, to pay an employer responsibility penalty, if their employees who work more than 12 hours per week and more than 45 days in a calendar year are enrolled in Medi-Cal based on the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) eligibility standard. Excludes clients of a regional center who are persons with disabilities from being counted in the calculation of 500 employees. 2)Establishes the basis of the penalty as 90% of the average cost of employee-only health care coverage provided by large employers to their employees, provides that the specific amount of the employer responsibility penalty is to be determined by multiplying the employer's total annual wage payments to all covered employees by a fraction to arrive at an amount that is intended to represent the amount of the share of time the employee covered by Medi-Cal works, as specified. 3)Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to AB 880 Page 2 determine the penalty, based on the formula in 2) above. 4)Creates the Employer Responsibility for Medi-Cal Trust Fund (Trust Fund) and requires monies collected from the penalties to be deposited in the Trust Fund and used in the Medi-Cal program, effective January 1, 2015. 5)Requires employers to pay the penalty to the Employment Development Department (EDD) for deposit into the Trust Fund. 6)Requires EDD to annually send notice to employers of the amount and the date on which the payment is due and provides for 10% interest if a penalty is more than 60 days overdue. 7)Authorizes EDD to waive all or part of the penalty if EDD determines that it would result in a financial hardship to the employer, as defined in regulations promulgated by EDD. 8)Provides for an effective date of January 1, 2015, for the provisions relating to the collection of the employer responsibility penalty and further provides that the costs to EDD to administer the program are to be paid from the Trust Fund. 9)Defines employer as an employing unit, as defined in current law regarding unemployment insurance, including all members of a controlled group of corporations, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, except that "more than 50%" is substituted for "at least 80%" in regard to combined voting power and the total value of shares. 10)Requires DHCS and EDD to obtain specified information and data and to share wage, enrollment and other data as specified in order to make the required calculations and identify low-income individuals covered by the Medi-Cal program and to enable DHCS to obtain employer information and employee wage information on individuals enrolled in Medi-Cal in order to determine the employer responsibility penalty. 11)Provides for the confidentiality of all documents and records that result from DHCS and EDD matching records and that nothing in this bill is to be construed to supersede requirements and protections in the California Right to Financial Privacy Act. AB 880 Page 3 12)Requires DHCS to provide notice to EDD of the amount of the employer responsibility penalty in a time and manner that permits EDD to provide notice to all large employers of the estimated penalty for the budget year, as specified, and requires EDD to notify the employer annually. 13)Requires employers to provide information to all newly hired and existing employees of the availability of Medi-Cal coverage for individuals or families under the MAGI threshold established for the Medi-Cal program pursuant to the Patent Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Requires EDD, in consultation with DHCS, to develop a simple, uniform notice containing the information. 14)Provides that the Trust Fund, upon appropriation to DHCS is to be used for the following purposes: a) To provide payment for the nonfederal share of Medi-Cal costs for covered employees; b) To increase reimbursement of providers by providing supplemental Medi-Cal payments for benefits provided pursuant to the alternative benefits package option that will be provided to newly eligible Medi-Cal enrollees pursuant to the Medi-Cal expansion authorized under the ACA, in order to improve access to medically underserved areas designated as health profession shortage areas or medically underserved areas. Requires the payments to be for both fee-for-service and Medi-Cal managed care and requires additional supplemental payments for providers in practice settings in which 30% or more of the patients are Medi-Cal enrollees or uninsured; c) To provide reimbursement to county health systems, community clinics, safety net providers, and other entities that provide care, without expectation of compensation, to those Californians who do not have minimum essential coverage as defined by the ACA; d) To fund medical residency programs consistent with the criteria developed by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). e) Costs of implementation, including costs to EDD, Franchise Tax Board (FTB), and any other governmental AB 880 Page 4 agency. 15)Requires, in developing the criteria, in 14) d) above, OSHPD give priority to programs that meet the following specifications: a) Located in medically underserved areas and have a proven record of placing graduates in these areas; b) Place an emphasis on training primary care providers and physician specialties that are most needed in the community the program is located; c) Place graduates in settings which at least 30% of the patients are Medi-Cal beneficiaries; and, d) Are accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association. 16)Provides, when applicable, OSHPD is to utilize Trust Funds to provide a match for federal funds for graduate medical education. 17)Provides the provisions related to OSHPD are effective January 1, 2015, and to the extent Trust Funds are appropriated for these purposes. 18)Defines safety net provider as any provider of comprehensive primary care or acute hospital inpatient services that provides these services to a significant total number of Medi-Cal and charity and/or medically indigent patients in relation to the total number of patients served by the provider. 19)Prohibits a large employer from discharging or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against an employee who enrolls in a public health benefit program, including, but not limited to, the Medi-Cal program, or the APTC, effective January 1, 2015. 20)Provides that any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated, or retaliated, against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because the employee has enrolled in a public health benefit program or AB 880 Page 5 the APTC through the Exchange to be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer, effective January 1, 2015. 21)Provides that an employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, or otherwise discriminated against as an employee due to enrollment in a subsidized insurance program or health benefit program, may file a complaint with the Department of Industrial Relations, effective January 1, 2015. 22)Requires employers to report information regarding wages, payroll taxes, personal income tax (PIT) deposits, and state disability insurance (SDI), to EDD and provides for the deposits of payroll taxes, SDI, PIT, and Unemployment Insurance. 23)Permits the EDD and the FTB to share information and develop data interfaces with the Exchange for purposes of enabling the Exchange to make eligibility determinations and comply with certain federal requirements. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 1)One-time costs to EDD of approximately $1 million to develop collection capabilities; including mailing information to employers, computer programming changes, development of a new interface with DHCS for data transmission. Ongoing costs of $420,000. 2)One-time and ongoing costs of more than $200,000 to DHCS for its part of the EDD interface. 3)Costs are likely to be more than offset by revenues generated by the penalties in this bill. Revenues are difficult to predict because this bill could lead employers to change their behavior in order to avoid the penalty. For example, if 250,000 people meet this bill's definition of covered employees, the penalties would be in the tens of millions of dollars. If some of the affected employers provide appropriate health coverage, the penalty revenue to the state would be lower, but state costs for Medi-Cal would also be lower. COMMENTS : According to the author, the purpose of this bill is AB 880 Page 6 to extend the employer responsibility requirement in the ACA to employers with employees who enroll in Medi-Cal to discourage these employers from shifting the cost of providing health coverage for their employees onto the state. The author states that this bill closes a loophole in the employer penalty provisions of the ACA. Specifically, the ACA requires individuals, employers, and government to share responsibility for health coverage. Individuals must have health coverage or pay a penalty. Employers with an average of at least 50 full time employees must either provide affordable health coverage or pay a penalty for each employee who accesses subsidized coverage in the state Exchange. However, an employer whose employees become eligible for Medi-Cal because their wages and hours cause the family income to fall below the MAGI standard will be eligible for Medi-Cal with no cost to the employer. The author states that the penalty proposed in this bill is intended to help offset that cost of the public subsidy. The federal government provides subsidies for premiums and cost-sharing through state exchanges and allows states to expand their Medicaid programs with 100% federal funding for the first three years. The author points out that legislation pending in the First Extraordinary Session proposes to expand the Medi-Cal program to provide coverage to childless adults up to 138% of the federal poverty level (currently set at $15,415 annually for an individual), based on the individual or family MAGI and will streamline eligibility and enrollment for anyone who is eligible under the MAGI standard, including families and children. The author further states that the ACA does not extend the employer responsibility penalty to employers who have workers enrolled in Medi-Cal, even though it is a public subsidy for their employees' health coverage. Citing a forthcoming study from the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, the author estimates that 250,000 parents working for firms with 500 or more employees are currently enrolled in Medi-Cal, and the study estimates that an additional 290,000 non-disabled adults, ages 19-64 working for firms with 500 or more employees will be enrolled in Medi-Cal. Furthermore, the author argues, the ACA penalty does not apply to part-time workers, defined as working fewer than, on average, 30 hours a week. The author asserts that this creates an incentive for some employers to cut hours and eliminate benefits for part-timers in order to evade the ACA penalty. In addition, this creates downward pressure on wages and strips workers of employer-sponsored coverage. According to the author, several AB 880 Page 7 large employers have announced that they are already starting to cut hours and benefits in preparation for the implementation. The ACA requires U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. In 2016 and beyond, those without coverage pay a tax penalty up to a maximum of $2,085 per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 per adult in 2014, $325 per adult in 2015, and $695 per adult in 2016 or the flat fee or 1% of taxable income in 2014, 2% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of their income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples). The ACA assesses employers with an average of 50 or more full-time employees who do not offer coverage and have at least one full-time employee who receives an APTC through the Exchange, a fee of $2,000 per full-time employee, excluding the first 30 employees from the assessment. Employers with 50 or more full-time employees that offer coverage but have at least one full-time employee receiving an APTC, will pay the lesser of $3,000 for each employee receiving a premium credit or $2,000 for each full-time employee, excluding the first 30 employees from the assessment, effective January 1, 2014. Employers with up to 50 full-time employees are exempt from the penalties. The ACA requires employers with more than 200 employees to automatically enroll employees into health insurance plans offered by the employer. Employees may opt out of coverage. This bill includes limited employee protections that are intended to prevent employers from retaliating against an employee who enrolls in Medi-Cal and to prevent employers from asking for information regarding whether the employee has enrolled in Medi-Cal. This is to ensure that this bill is not in conflict with a primary goal of the ACA, which is to reduce the numbers of uninsured by expanding Medi-Cal coverage. The anti- retaliation and other protections are modeled after existing law that prohibits an employer from discharging, discriminating, or retaliating against an employee who is a AB 880 Page 8 victim of domestic violence or sexual assault for taking time off from work to attend judicial proceedings or to attend specified medical, domestic violence prevention, or counseling services. That law also states that an employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against for taking time off for these purposes is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits and may file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. The anti-retaliation protections, by not constituting a "serious violations" allow employers to remedy any violation. The California Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) writes in opposition that this bill would impose a number of significant new penalties on private employers with 500 or more employees in California and would dramatically increase the amount of frivolous litigation under the Labor Code. According to the Chamber this bill goes well beyond the requirements of the ACA in two ways. First, under the ACA, the formula for assessing a penalty on employers who do not offer affordable health care coverage when their employee receives subsidized care is $2,000 annually times the number of full-time employees minus 30. In contrast, the Chamber points out, the formula for assessing a penalty under this bill is based on the cost of health insurance premiums for the employee and the employer which far exceeds $2,000. The Chamber also states that it is unclear whether this bill sets the penalty level at the individual or family level of healthcare coverage. Second, according to this opposition, this bill applies its provisions to part-time as well as full-time employees. The opposition states that it can understand the goals of supporting employer coverage for full-time employees, since this has been a common and expected practice for decades; the "employer responsibility" provisions of the ACA reflected that. However, this bill would go far beyond common practice and the ACA by applying the penalty to employers whose part-time employees receive Medi-Cal benefits. The Chamber further opposes this bill because it creates a broad protected class of employees and will significantly hamper an employer's ability to manage its workforce. Analysis Prepared by : Marjorie Swartz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 AB 880 Page 9 FN: 0001263