BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                           Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair

                                           1825 (De La Torre)
          
          Hearing Date:  8/12/2010        Amended: As Introduced
          Consultant: Katie Johnson       Policy Vote: Health 6-0
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____
          BILL SUMMARY:  AB 1825 would require health insurance policies  
          that cover hospital, medical, or surgical expenses to also  
          provide coverage for maternity services.
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____
                            Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions         2010-11      2011-12       2012-13     Fund
                                                                  
          CDI review of policies   $75        $145     $0        Special*

          Cost pressure to provide $47 - $467 $93 - $934         $93 -  
          $934          County/**
          care for newly                                         Federal
          uninsured persons

          *Insurance Fund
          **Costs could be shared equally between county and federal  
          funds, or could be all county funds. See staff comments.
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____

          STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
          
          Existing federal law, the Federal Civil Rights Act, requires  
          that employers that offer health insurance and have 15 or more  
          employees must cover maternity services. Additionally, state  
          law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975,  
          requires health care service plans to provide maternity services  
          as a basic health care benefit. Health insurance policies  
          regulated by the California Department of Insurance (CDI),  
          however, are not required to cover maternity services.

          This bill would require that every individual or group policy of  
          health insurance that covers hospital, medical, or surgical  
          expenses and that is issued, amended, renewed, or delivered on  
          or after January 1, 2011, must also provide coverage for  










          maternity services, defined as including prenatal care,  
          ambulatory care maternity services, involuntary complications of  
          pregnancy, neonatal care, and inpatient hospital maternity care.  
          Health insurers would be required to submit updated policies  
          that provide coverage for maternity services by March 1, 2011.  
          CDI would incur costs of approximately $75,000 in FY 2010-11 and  
          $145,000 in FY 2011-2012 to fund staff counsel to review the new  
          and updated policies. Ongoing costs to CDI would be absorbable.

          The recently passed federal Patient Protection and Affordable  
          Care Act (PPACA) would require all health plans and insurers to  
          provide maternity coverage commencing January 1, 2014, as part  
          of an essential health benefits package, but the Secretary for 

          Page 2
          AB 1825 (De La Torre)

          Health and Human Services (HHS) has yet to define the scope of  
          benefits for maternity care. The fiscal impact of this bill is  
          unknown beyond January 1, 2014.

          According to a 2010 California Health Benefits Review Program  
          (CHBRP) analysis of AB 1825, this bill would have no fiscal  
          impact on publicly-funded California health care programs such  
          as Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, or the California Public  
          Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), since these plans already  
          cover maternity services. In addition to providing services to  
          uninsured women, the Access for Infants and Mothers program  
          (AIM) serves women with private insurance with incomes between  
          200 and 300 percent of the federal poverty level with  
          out-of-pocket maternity costs of greater than $500. To the  
          extent that this bill provides women with maternity coverage  
          that makes them ineligible for AIM, there may be a small savings  
          to the state; however, a cost shift would be unlikely since  
          women would probably continue to have out of pocket costs above  
          $500. AIM is funded primarily by 65 percent federal funds and 35  
          percent state tobacco tax revenue and subscriber contributions.

          CHBRP estimates that this bill could cause a 4.7 percent  
          increase in premiums, or an average of $8.48 per member per  
          month, in individual market health insurance products. For  
          individuals without maternity benefits, premiums would increase.  
          For individuals with maternity benefits, premiums would  
          decrease. It is estimated that annual expenditures for  
          individuals in the private individual health insurance market  
          would increase by $40 million.











          Due to the increase in premiums, CHBRP estimates that  
          approximately 9,335 people would drop coverage and become newly  
          uninsured. If they were to seek medical care in a clinic or a  
          hospital emergency department, there would be cost pressure on  
          county and federal funds, such as the Safety Net Care Pool, to  
          reimburse providers for care to the uninsured. For example, if  
          each uninsured individual incurred costs of $100 per year, it  
          would total $933,500 annually.

          The Governor vetoed SB 1555 (Speier, 2004), AB 1962 (De La  
          Torre, 2008), and AB 98 (De La Torre, 2009) due to concerns that  
          this additional mandate would increase health insurance  
          premiums.