BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1384 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 22, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE Tom Daly, Chair SB 1384 (Liu) - As Amended June 14, 2016 SENATE VOTE: 39-0 SUBJECT: California Partnership for Long-Term Care Program SUMMARY: Establishes a task force to advise the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on the operation of the California Partnership for Long-Term Care (partnership) and revises the requirements for partnership policies. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires that partnership policies provide the consumer with at least two inflation protection options (5% annual compound inflation protection or a less expensive inflation protection option). 2)Requires insurers offering partnership policies to provide the consumer with a graph illustrating the difference in premium expense and benefit levels associated with each inflation protection option. SB 1384 Page 2 3)Requires DHCS to adopt regulations allowing the partnership to certify policies covering: a. Only nursing and residential care facility benefits b. Only home based and community care benefits c. Comprehensive long-term care (LTC) benefits 4)Establishes a task force to advise DHCS on the partnership that is composed of the following (or their designated representative): a. Director of DHCS b. Director of the Department of Social Services (DSS) c. Director of the Department of Aging d. Director of the Department of Managed Health Care e. Department of Insurance (DOI) f. Senate Rules Committee g. Speaker of the State Assembly SB 1384 Page 3 5)Requires the task force to consult with experts in long-term care representing the following groups: a. Consumers b. Health care providers c. Insurers and health care service plans d. Private employers e. Academics f. CalPERS g. CalSTRS EXISTING LAW: 1) Provides for the regulation of LTC insurance by the DOI and prescribes various requirements and conditions governing the delivery of individual or group LTC insurance in the state. 2) Establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the DHCS, under which low income individuals are eligible for long-term care services. SB 1384 Page 4 3) Requires DHCS to claim against the estate of a deceased Medi-Cal beneficiary an amount equal to the payments for medical and LTC services received up to the value of the estate (estate recovery). 4) Establishes the partnership within the DHCS to link private LTC insurance with Medi-Cal and In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program eligibility requirements and Medi-Cal estate recovery. 5) Requires that policies certified by the Partnership program be approved by DOI as compliant with most, but not all, provisions the Insurance Code applicable to LTC insurance. 6) Requires that policies and plans certified by the partnership also contain the following benefits or features: a. Individual assessment and case management by a coordinating entity designated and approved by DHCS. b. Inflation protection (existing regulations require a minimum 5% annual compound inflation escalator). c. A periodic explanation of insurance payments or benefits paid that count toward Medi-Cal asset protection. d. Compliance with applicable regulations adopted by DHCS or DSS. 1) Disregards an equivalent value of qualified benefits received under a certified Partnership policy for the purposes of determining eligibility in the Medi-Cal or IHSS programs and in determining the amount subject to estate recovery (the benefit is referred to as "asset protection"). FISCAL EFFECT: Undetermined. SB 1384 Page 5 COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, almost 20% of California's population will be age 65+ by 2030. Seventy percent of those will require some form of LTC services, yet 67% underestimate their future needs. Only 8% of seniors have purchased LTC insurance. The partnership was created to provide LTC insurance options for middle class consumers who cannot afford to pay directly for LTC that allow them to age in their homes. Without affordable LTC insurance, these consumers' 1) impoverish themselves to qualify for Medi-Cal services, 2) rely on family members for care, or 3) go without. Of the three insurers remaining in the partnership, one no longer issues new policies, another's credit worthiness has been downgraded, and CalPERS can only offer coverage to CalPERS members and their eligible family members. In comparison, Washington advertises 12 participating issuers of partnership policies; Oregon, 19; New York, 2; and North Dakota, 21. Partnership policy sales have declined nationally, but most significantly in California. In 2004, 13,369 consumers applied for partnership policies (8,425 were granted), but only 858 applied in 2014 (611 were granted). SB 1384 will enable the California partnership to make affordable, practical LTC insurance available for middle-class consumers. 2)Partnership. Early in the 1990s, four states joined with the federal government to establish the four original Partnership programs. The federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) opened the door for more states to establish their own programs and some 40 states operate partnership programs. In California, the program is jointly administered by DOI and DHCS. DOI reviews and approves policies in accordance with the Insurance Code, and DHCS establishes minimum standards and certifies that the policies meet program requirements in the Welfare and Institutions Code. Partnership policies were intended to target middle-class SB 1384 Page 6 consumers whose pension and savings are adequate for retirement so long as they do not experience a serious chronic disability. This approach was intended to encourage financial planning and gave consumers a way to preserve some assets if their LTC insurance coverage runs out and the consumer becomes impoverished and qualifies for Medi-Cal. Unfortunately, the middle class consumers that the program was intended to help can't afford the policies. The inflation protection standards required by DHCS regulations make partnership policies unaffordable to all but the most affluent retirees. In 2007, the US Government Accountability Office released a study of the original partnership states and concluded that many of the consumers who could afford to purchase a partnership policy would never qualify for or use Medi-Cal, which undermines the purpose of the partnership. 3)Pricing. California Long Term Care Insurance Service (CLTCI), an LTC insurance brokerage firm, has provided examples to illustrate the impact different inflation escalator options have on premium. The following example is based on a policy issued by major carrier with a 3-year benefit limit, a 90-day elimination period, and $190 day benefit purchased at age 57: Annual Premium: Female No Inflation Protection: $2,897 3% Compound Inflation Protection: $4,549 5% Compound Inflation Protection: $11,135 Annual Premium: Male No Inflation Protection: $2,106 3% Compound Inflation Protection: $3,053 5% Compound Inflation Protection: $7,187 Originally, the first four partnership states required 5% compound escalator, but now there are a variety of options in other states. For example, the New York State partnership program, one of the original partnership states, offers a 3.5% inflation escalator. In 2014, New York consumers purchased 2,184 partnership policies; over 72% of those chose the 3.5% SB 1384 Page 7 inflation option instead of the 5%. 4)Coverage Choices. Most consumers prefer to be at home, rather than in an institution, when they suffer from a disability. Eighty percent of those age 65 or older receiving chronic illness care, receive that care in their home. New techniques and technology are making it easier to keep people with severe disabilities at home longer. SB 1384 would permit insurers to offer partnership policies that provide home care-only policies (a lower cost option). REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Association of California Health and Life Insurance Companies California Health Advocates National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, California Opposition California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform SB 1384 Page 8 Analysis Prepared by:Paul Riches / INS. / (916) 319-2086