BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE AB 1059
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478
.
THIRD READING
.
Bill No: AB 1059
Author: Migden (D)
Amended: 7/3/97 in Senate
Vote: 21
.
SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE : 6-3, 7/2/97
AYES: Rosenthal, Hughes, Johnston, Peace, Schiff, Sher
NOES: Johnson, Leslie, Lewis
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-35, 6/2/97 - See last page for vote
.
SUBJECT : Domestic partners
SOURCE : The author
.
DIGEST : This bill requires health plans and health
insurers that offer group coverage benefits to the
dependents of an employee or subscriber to offer those
benefits on the same terms to a domestic partner, as
specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Provides for health insurance and health care benefits to
spouses and dependents in a number of areas.
2.Prohibits discrimination based on marital status or
sexual orientation in a number of contexts, including
insurance.
This bill:
1.Requires health plans and health insurers that provide
group coverage to provide the same benefits to the
domestic partner of a subscriber or employee as they
provide to dependents, and subject to the same terms and
conditions.
2.Requires a health care service plan or a disability
insurer that provides hospital, medical or surgical
benefits for employees, subscribers or other persons
entitled to elect coverage and their dependents to enroll
as a dependent, upon application by the employer or group
administration, as a domestic partner or the employee,
subscriber or that other person.
3.Defines "domestic partner," for purposes of the bill, as
an adult individual who has chosen to share in another
adult individual's life in an intimate and committed
relationship of mutual caring. A domestic partnership
shall be established when all of the following
requirements are met:
A. Both persons certify in writing that they share the
same regular and permanent primary residence and have
shared a common residence for the previous six
months.
B. Both persons agree in writing to be jointly
responsible for each other's basic living expenses
during the domestic partnership.
C. Neither person is married or a member of another
domestic partnership, nor has been married or a
member of another domestic partnership during the
preceding six months, unless such marriage or
domestic partnership terminated due to the death of a
spouse or domestic partner.
D. The two persons are not related by blood in a way
that would prevent them from being married to each
other in this state.
E. Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
F. Both persons register as a domestic partnership with
a state or local government entity, if any such
registration is provided for at the state or local
level.
4.Make the following definitions;
A. "Share the same regular and permanent primary
residence" means that two people are cohabitants. It
is not necessary that the legal right to possess the
common primary residence be in both of their names.
B. "Basic living expenses" means basic food and
shelter. It also means any other cost, such as
medical care, if some or all of the cost is paid as a
benefit because a person is another person's domestic
partner.
C. "Joint responsibility" means that each partner
agrees in writing to provide for the other partner's
basic living expenses if the partner is unable to
provide for herself or himself. Anyone to whom these
expenses are owed can enforce this responsibility.
5.Specifies that if a domestic partnership terminates, the
employee or subscriber cannot have another domestic
partner added to coverage until six months after the
termination of the previous domestic partnership, unless
the previous domestic partnership ended because the
domestic partner died.
6.Requires a subscriber with coverage for a domestic
partner shall agree in writing to do the following:
A. Provide, upon request by the employer or health care
service plan, an affidavit signed under penalty of
perjury by both domestic partners certifying that they
meet the criteria for domestic partners set forth in this
section.
B. File with the employer or health care service plan a
notice of termination of the domestic partnership within
30 days of its termination.
7.Specifies that nothing in this bill is to be construed to
expand the requirements of federal law which were added
by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1985.
Background : In 1984, the City of Berkeley was the first
employer in the country to offer benefits to the domestic
partners of its employees. In 1993, the Insurance
Commissioner convened a task force to address the problem
of unfair insurance discrimination against unmarried
consumers. The Task Force report pointed out the
discrimination that exists, and recommended recognition of
domestic partnerships for insurance purposes. Now over 500
employers, including cities, states, universities, and
private sector businesses, for example, IBM, Apple
Computer, Disney, Bank of America, Genentech, Orrick, Time
Warner and, most recently, the San Francisco 49ers, provide
such benefits.
However, while many health plans offer this coverage to
large employers, they often deny the benefit to smaller
employers, with Kaiser being a notable exception. There
appears to be no economic basis for excluding this
coverage. In a number of cases, employers and insurers
initially included a surcharge on domestic partnership
coverage to address any potential adverse economic impact.
Such surcharges have almost universally been dropped as
experience shows that costs for domestic partners are
nearly identical to costs for spousal coverage. Employer
fears of huge numbers of fraudulent claims also proved
groundless.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/21/97)
Aids Project Los Angeles
California Church IMPACT
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Nurses Association
California Optometric Association
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
California Women's Law Center
City of Berkeley
City and County of San Francisco
Clergy:
John P. Bingham, Samaritan Counseling Center
Vincent Brady, Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament
Donald G. Brown, Trinity Episcopal Cathedral
Carol M. Carter, Wesley United Methodist, First United
Methodist
Catherine M. Campbell, Hispanic Office, Episcopal
Diocese of Northern California, La Mission Hispana el
Divino Salvador
Barry F. Cavaghan, United Campus Ministry
Steven Fietz, First Christian Church
George E. Herbert, Westminster Presbyterian Church
George K. Meier, Pioneer Congregational Church
Jay K. Pierce, Central united Methodist Church
Carlos Schneider, St. John's Lutheran Church
Congress of California Seniors
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program
LIFE Lobby
Older Women's League of California
Santa Barbara Stonewall Democratic Club
Spectrum Institute
Unity Pride Coalition of Ventura County
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/21/97)
Capitol Resource Institute
Committee on Moral Concerns
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
this bill was introduced to address the health insurance
concerns of unmarried couples. The Unruh Civil Rights Act,
as well as an explicit regulation applicable to the
business of insurance, prohibits discrimination based on an
individual's marital status or sexual orientation. Yet
some health plans currently offer benefits to spouses that
are not available to a person's unmarried partner. This
problem is particularly acute for same-sex couples who
cannot have their relationships recognized as marriages.
Elderly couples who form committed and exclusive
relationships share a similar problem. This bill helps
resolve the current inequity in law with respect to health
benefits. Unmarried couples will not be denied access to
health benefits for their partners solely because of their
sexual orientation or marital status.
The author argues that more than a decade of experience
with domestic partnership demonstrates that it is both
pro-civil rights and pro-business. A fast-growing list of
businesses is now offering domestic partner benefits to
their employees, including some insurance companies. It is
mostly smaller businesses that this bill would assist,
which is why the bill is intended to cover the Health
Insurance Plan of California (HIPC). The author
acknowledges moral differences in the discussion of
domestic partnership, and concerning same-sex couples in
particular, but points out that nearly all religious
denominations are re-examining their position.
Supporters present legal, health, social, religious and
economic arguments in favor of the measure. On economic
grounds, Spectrum Institute (SI) notes that virtually all
the business-centered fears initially expressed about
domestic partnership have failed to materialize. Experience
has shown that the cost of providing domestic partner
benefits is the same as or less than that of providing
spousal benefits.
Smaller employers who want to compete for employees have a
hard time finding insurers who will offer this coverage.
The City and County of San Francisco cites the difficulties
employers face in offering domestic partner health coverage
because it is unavailable or too expensive. SI notes that
this bill will make it easier for small businesses to
compete for a valuable pool of employees.
Citing religious reasons in support, clergy from both the
Protestant and Roman Catholic communities note that both
the Old and New Testaments recognize a number of family
forms. They argue it is possible to support the bill on
moral, and specifically, on Biblical grounds. Moreover,
they maintain that it is fundamentally just and right that
all persons have access to health coverage. The Life Lobby
and the California Nurses Association emphasize the social
importance of partnership to provide mutual protection.
Because of the inability to enter a recognized marriage
under state law, committed same-sex couples have long
struggled within the legal system to protect one another.
The societal expectation that, when one partner has a job,
the other will be covered for health costs breaks down with
same-sex couples. This not only creates hardships for both
partners, but exacts a cost to the state. The state may be
called upon to pick up the costs for the uninsured domestic
partner. Various supporters also present the legal
argument that this bill is a matter of civil rights and
equal protection under the law.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Committee on Moral Concerns
opposes the bill, emphasizing five points. First,
homosexual couples are simply friends, and should not be
viewed as dependent on one another irrespective of their
own assessment of the importance, intimacy and permanency
of their relationship. Second, heterosexual couples who
are unwilling to commit to a marital relationship should
not be given taxpayer recognition. Third, roommates might
sign up for these benefits, and the constitutional right to
privacy would prevent the government from determining
whether their relationship was more than just casual.
Fourth, the cost to employers of domestic partnership
benefits would result in lower wages, higher prices, loss
of jobs and insurance coverage for other workers. Fifth,
the historical family arrangement works best for society.
The Capitol Resource Institute opposes this bill because it
would force insurance companies to offer domestic partner
benefits to employers, which they can already do.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Bowen, Brewer, Brown, Caldera,
Cardenas, Cunneen, Davis, Ducheny, Escutia, Figueroa,
Firestone, Floyd, Gallegos, Hertzberg, Honda, Keeley,
Knox, Kuehl, Kuykendall, Lempert, Martinez, Mazzoni,
Migden, Murray, Napolitano, Ortiz, Papan, Perata, Scott,
Shelley, Strom-Martin, Sweeney, Thomson, Torlakson,
Villaraigosa, Vincent, Wayne, Wildman, Wright, Bustamante
NOES: Ackerman, Aguiar, Alby, Ashburn, Baldwin, Battin,
Baugh, Bordonaro, Bowler, Campbell, Cardoza, Frusetta,
Goldsmith, Granlund, Havice, House, Kaloogian, Leach,
Leonard, Margett, McClintock, Miller, Morrissey, Morrow,
Olberg, Oller, Pacheco, Poochigian, Prenter, Pringle,
Runner, Takasugi, Thompson, Washington, Woods
NOT VOTING: Baca, Machado, Richter
DLW:ctl 7/22/97 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****