BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
1521 (Jones)
Hearing Date: 8/27/2009 Amended: 7/15/2009
Consultant: Katie Johnson Policy Vote: Health 8-3
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 1521 would prohibit the variation of
compensation a health care service plan or a health insurer pays
to a solicitor for the sale or offer of, or application for, an
individual health plan contract or insurance policy that would
depend on the health status, claims experience, industry, or
occupation of the individual.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
DMHC enforcement up to $200 up to $375up to $350Special*
*Managed Care Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
Existing law provides for the regulation of health care service
plans by the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) and of
health insurers by the California Department of Insurance (CDI).
This bill would prohibit health plans and insurers from entering
into a contract, agreement, or arrangement with a solicitor that
provides for or results in his or her compensation for the sale
or offer of, or application for, an individual health plan
contract or an individual insurance policy to be varied because
of the health status, claims experience, industry, or occupation
of the individual, as specified.
This bill would also provide that the compensation paid to a
solicitor upon the transfer or renewal of an individual contract
or policy would be based upon the renewal rate for the contract
or policy under which the individual would be covered after the
renewal or transfer occurs. Unless an individual is applying for
transfer to a different contract or policy under the same health
plan or insurer without medical underwriting, this bill would
require health plans and health insurers to notify an individual
applying to change to a different individual contract or policy
that the application could result in a review of the applicant's
medical history, an offer of a higher premium, or a denial of
coverage.
To date, neither DMHC nor CDI has received a complaint relating
to these prohibitions. However, if DMHC was to receive a
significant enough amount of complaints to warrant an
investigation, which could entail the discovery of facts and
comparisons of the levels of compensation among plans, the
department could need approximately $200,000 in FY 2009-2010,
$375,000 in FY 2010-2011, and $350,000 in FY 2011-2012. Ongoing
costs would likely be minor and absorbable. Costs to CDI to
enforce these provisions would be minor and absorbable.