BILL ANALYSIS
AB 56
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 56 (Portantino)
As Amended September 1, 2009
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |50-26|(June 3, 2009) |SENATE: |24-13|(September 2, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |50-28|(September 8, | | | |
| | |2009) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HEALTH
SUMMARY : Requires health insurers to provide coverage for
mammography upon provider referral by July 1, 2010, and requires
health plans and health insurers to notify subscribers or
policyholders of recommended timelines for testing.
The Senate amendments :
1)Add physician assistants to the list of providers eligible to
make a referral for a covered mammography beginning July 1,
2010, to the extent allowed by their scope of practice.
2)Expand the method by which health plans and health insurers
may notify a subscriber or policyholder of recommended
timelines for an individual to undergo tests for the screening
or diagnosis of breast cancer.
3)Exclude self-insured employee welfare benefit plans from the
requirement to provide mammography beginning July 1, 2010.
4)Make other technical and clarifying changes.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version approved by the Senate.
AB 56
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, to the extent that this bill increases the number of
mammograms annually, there would be costs to Medi-Cal, Access
for Infants and Mothers (AIM), and the Major Risk Medical
Insurance Program (MRMIP). This could result in up to
approximately $375,000 in additional costs, using the 20,000
additional mammograms as the high end estimate of additional
mammograms resulting from this bill's provisions. There would
also be minor and absorbable costs to the state-payer portion of
the California Public Employees Retirement System and no fiscal
impact on the Healthy Families Program.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
The addition of a new mandate, no matter how small,
will only serve to increase the overall cost of health
care. This, like other mandates, only increases cost
in an environment in which health coverage is
increasingly expensive.
California has over 40 mandates on its health care
service plans and health insurance policies. While
these mandates are well-intentioned, the costs
associated with the cumulative effect of these
mandates mean that these costs are passed through to
the purchaser and consumer.
I continue to have serious concerns about the rising
costs of healthcare and must weigh the potential
benefits of a mandate with the comprehensive costs to
the entire delivery system and for that reason, I
cannot support this bill.
Analysis Prepared by: Marjorie Swartz / HEALTH / (916)
319-2097
AB 56
Page 3
FN: 0003403