BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                            Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair


          SB 320 (Beall) - Health care coverage: acquired brain injury.
          
          Amended: April 3, 2013          Policy Vote: Health 5-2
          Urgency: No                     Mandate: Yes
          Hearing Date: May 13, 2013      Consultant: Brendan McCarthy
          
          This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
          
          
          Bill Summary: SB 320 would mandate health plans and health  
          insurers to provide coverage for medically necessary medical or  
          rehabilitation treatments for acquired brain injuries at  
          specified facilities.

          Fiscal Impact: 
              One-time costs of about $270,000 for the development of  
              regulations, review of health plan filings, and initial  
              enforcement activities by the Department of Managed Health  
              Care (Managed Care Fund).

              Ongoing costs of about $200,000 per year for responding to  
              customer complaints and enforcement activities by the  
              Department of Managed Health Care (Managed Care Fund).

              One-time costs of $150,000 to $300,000 for the development  
              of regulations and the review of insurance policy filings by  
              the Department of Insurance (Insurance Fund).

              Unknown ongoing costs for responding to customer complaints  
              and enforcement activities by the Department of Insurance  
              (Insurance Fund).

              Unknown costs to state health care programs such as  
              Medi-Cal and CalPERS. Because the bill's impact on coverage  
              by health plans and health insurers cannot be determined,  
              the fiscal impact on state health care programs cannot be  
              determined. See below. 

              Unknown costs to the state to pay for subsidized health  
              care coverage through the California Health Benefit  
              Exchange. Because the bill's impact on coverage by health  
              plans and health insurers cannot be determined, the cost to  








          SB 320 (Beall)
          Page 1


              the state to subsidize coverage in the Exchange cannot be  
              determined. See below.

          Background: Under the federal Patient Protection and Affordable  
          Care Act (Affordable Care Act), health coverage provided in the  
          small group or individual market (including through health  
          exchanges) must provide essential health benefits. Federal law  
          specifies that essential health benefits include ten specified  
          categories of benefits - including rehabilitative and  
          habilitative services. Federal guidance allows the states to  
          designate a benchmark essential health benefits plan. All health  
          plans offered for sale in the individual and small group markets  
          will have to provide the same level of benefits as is provided  
          by the benchmark plan.

          State law establishes the Kaiser Small Group HMO plan as the  
          benchmark plan. By selecting this plan (and as authorized under  
          federal law) the state has incorporated all existing benefit  
          mandates that apply to the Kaiser Small Group HMO plan into the  
          state's essential health benefits.

          Under federal law, individuals purchasing coverage through  
          health benefit exchanges will be eligible for subsidies, based  
          on income, paid by the federal government. However, if a state  
          imposes a benefit mandate after January 1, 2012 that exceeds the  
          benefits provided by the essential health benefits benchmark  
          plan, the state is responsible for covering the proportional  
          cost of the subsidies attributable to that mandated benefit.

          Proposed Law: SB 320 would mandate health plans and health  
          insurers to provide coverage for medically necessary medical or  
          rehabilitation treatments for acquired brain injuries at  
          specified facilities.

          The facilities specified in the bill include:
              Hospitals;
              Acute rehabilitation hospitals;
              Long-term care acute hospitals;
              Adult residential or post-acute residential transitional  
              rehabilitation facilities;
              Medical offices;
              Other analogous facilities.

          Related Legislation: SB 253 (Alquist, 2011) was substantially  








          SB 320 (Beall)
          Page 2


          similar to this bill. That bill was held in the Senate Health  
          Committee.

          Staff Comments: Under current law, the California Health  
          Benefits Review Program (part of the University of California)  
          analyzes proposed laws that mandate health care benefits or  
          services.

          The California Health Benefits Review Program found that the  
          impacts on coverage and health care costs from SB 320 cannot be  
          determined. Unlike most health care mandate bills, this bill  
          does not mandate that specific benefits or services be provided  
          by health plans and health insurers. This bill requires that  
          medically necessary treatments be provided at certain  
          facilities. In general, most health plans and insurers in the  
          state already provide coverage for services at the specified  
          facility types. However, not all health plans and health  
          insurers provide coverage for medically necessary services at  
          adult residential or post-acute residential transition  
          facilities. Under the bill, coverage for medically necessary  
          services at those facilities would be mandated.

          The California Health Benefits Review Program could not  
          determine whether the bill would result in increased utilization  
          of services because coverage would be extended to those  
          specified facilities. Therefore, the California Health Benefits  
          Review Program could not determine whether the bill will  
          increase health care costs.

          If the bill were to increase health care costs (for example,  
          because of increased utilization of services at specified  
          facilities) state health care programs would experience  
          increased expenditures.

          The Affordable Care Act requires the state to pay for the cost  
          of subsidizing any new benefit mandates. If the bill does result  
          in increased health care costs, the state would be required to  
          pay for the proportional cost of the subsidies attributable to  
          that mandated benefit. Researchers at the UC Berkeley Labor  
          Center have projected that enrollment in subsidized coverage  
          through the California Health Benefit Exchange is likely to be  
          between 1.7 million and 2.1 million. Given the large number of  
          people expected to be receiving subsidies through the Exchange,  
          even a minor increase in the annual cost of providing coverage  








          SB 320 (Beall)
          Page 3


          because of a new state benefit mandate will have a significant  
          impact on the state.

          The only costs that would be incurred by a local agency under  
          the bill relate to crimes and infractions. Such costs are not  
          reimbursable by the state under the California Constitution.