BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                          AB 26
                                                          Page  1

Date of Hearing:   May 12, 1999

              ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 
                    Carole Migden, Chairwoman

           AB 26 (Migden) - As Amended: April 8, 1999 

Policy Committee:                              HealthVote:9 - 4

Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local  
Program:YesReimbursable:          Yes

  SUMMARY  :

This bill requires health insurers to offer to employers the  
option to purchase coverage for domestic partners, according to  
the same terms and conditions by which the insurer makes  
available coverage for employee dependents.  The bill also  
directs the Secretary of State to establish a statewide registry  
of domestic partners, thereby allowing insurers to verify  
domestic partnerships, and authorizes the office to charge a $10  
fee to cover the cost of maintaining the registry.

Separately, the bill requires health facilities to allow  
domestic partners of patients and patient family members access  
during visiting hours.  

  FISCAL EFFECT  :

One-time cost to the Secretary of State of $118,000 in 1999-00  
to establish the registry required by the bill, and costs of  
$50,000 to $60,000 annually thereafter.  These costs would be  
fully offset by fees paid by registrants.  

In addition, the bill requires county clerk offices to make  
registration forms available to the public.  County costs to do  
so would be minimal, but would be state reimbursable in the  
event they exceed $200 per county.

  COMMENTS  :

  1)Purpose of the Bill  .  According to the author, this bill is  
  intended to facilitate domestic partners health insurance  
  coverage for smaller employers.  The author notes many large  
  firms and the University of California now offer coverage to  








                                                          AB 26
                                                          Page  2

  the domestic partners of employees for competitive reasons.   
  However, the lack of widespread availability and rate  
  discrimination are continue to pose barriers to smaller  
  employers and individuals that may wish to purchase such  
  coverage. 

  According to the California Alliance for Pride and Equality,  
  sponsor of the bill, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the  
  California Labor Code, and sections of the California Code of  
  Regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual  
  orientation and/or marital status.  Yet some health plans  
  currently offer benefits to married spouses that are not also  
  offered for unmarried domestic partners.  This problem is  
  particularly acute for same-sex couples whose relationships  
  are not currently recognized under existing law.  The sponsor  
  notes elderly couples who form committed and exclusive  
  relationships but chose not to marry share a similar problem. 

  2)Larger Businesses Frequently Offer Domestic Partner Health  
  Coverage  .  Nationally, more than 500 employers now provide  
  some type of benefits for domestic partners.  Among the major  
  firms offering domestic partners coverage are American  
  Express, Apple Computer, Chevron, Hewlett-Packard, IBM,  
  Northwest Airlines, Pacific Gas & Electric, Sprint  
  Communications, Time Warner, and Xerox.  Several of  
  California's largest insurers, including Health Net, Blue  
  Cross, Blue Shield and PacifiCare, and Kaiser Permanente,  
  already offer this elective coverage to their clients.

  3)Opposition  .  The Committee on Moral Concern opposes the bill  
  because it legalizes "pseudo marriages." Opponents argue gay  
  and lesbian partners are not dependents and, moreover, that if  
  heterosexual benefit are unwilling to commit to each other in  
  a real marriage, state government should not commit to their  
  relationship either.  Finally, opponents argue domestic  
  partnerships devalue true family commitments, lend an "air of  
  legitimacy" to homosexuality, and therefore are "socially  
  destructive."  

  4)Related Legislation  .  AB 1059 of 1998, also by this author,  
  was substantially similar to this bill.  In his veto message  
  of AB 1059, the governor said:  "Domestic partner health  
  benefit coverage is an issue that is more appropriately left  
  to negotiations between employers and employees.  This  
  coverage is available for both large and small employers who  








                                                          AB 26
                                                          Page  3

  wish to provide the benefit, as evidenced by the many  
  employers who choose to do so." 

  5)Proposed Amendments  .  The author proposes amendments to:

       Require health insurers to offer domestic partner health  
     benefits as an optional coverage for policies sold to  
     individuals.  In its current form, the bill only applies  
     only to policies sold to "group" purchasers.

       Direct the Health Insurance Plan of California, the  
     state's small employer health insurance purchasing pool, to  
     make available to employers plans covering domestic  
     partners.

  Analysis Prepared by :    William Wehrle / APPR. / (916) 319-2081