BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 630
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 19, 2009  

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                  SB 630 (Steinberg) - As Amended:  June 22, 2009  

          Policy Committee:                              Health Vote:13-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires health plans and insurers to cover medically  
          necessary dental or orthodontic services related to cleft palate  
          procedures that are an integral part of reconstructive surgery,  
          as defined. This bill also adds a definition for cleft palate  
          for the purpose of inclusion in the current law reconstructive  
          surgery coverage mandate. Under current law, health plan and  
          insurer coverage for reconstructive surgery is required, but  
          does not specify dental or orthodontic services for cleft palate  
          procedures. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Although this bill addresses a health mandate, this bill has  
            not been analyzed by the California Health Benefits Review  
            Program (CHBRP). Therefore specific CHBRP estimates on SB 630  
            have not been published. 

          2)Based on CHBRP analysis of a similar bill, SB 1634  
            (Steinberg), which was vetoed in 2008 due to cost concerns,  
            this bill has a likely fiscal impact of $600,000 in premium  
            costs in the private group and individual insurance markets.  
            These costs reflect a shift from out-of-pocket spending by  
            individuals and families to health insurance premium  
            expenditures. 

          3)Based on CHBRP analysis of SB 1634, costs of $40,000 to  
            CalPERS to comply with the mandated expansion of coverage  
            established by this bill. 

          4)The total cost impact, in both the private and public sectors  
            is relatively minor compared to other health mandates because  








                                                                  SB 630
                                                                  Page  2

            fewer than 100 individuals statewide are expected to benefit  
            from this mandate.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  . This bill is sponsored by the California Society of  
            Plastic Surgeons to expand a current law reconstructive  
            surgery mandate established by AB 1621 (Figueroa), Chapter  
            788, Statutes of 1998. This bill adds specificity to the  
            reconstructive surgery mandate by requiring coverage for  
            dental and orthodontic services related to cleft palate  
            procedures. According to the author, children with cleft  
            palates often require reconstructive surgery completed over  
            the course of early childhood, but some children are not  
            covered for surgery unless they have separate dental  
            insurance. This bill requires health plans and insurers to  
            cover these surgeries as a part of other medical, not dental,  
            care.

           2)Cleft palates  are birth defects that occur when the roof of  
            the mouth does not close fully, leaving a gap in the roof of  
            the mouth and possibly through to the nasal cavity. Cleft  
            palates can result in trouble in speaking, hearing, and  
            eating. 

           3)Industry Cost Concerns  . Opponents of this bill indicate  
            legislatively mandated health benefits increase costs and  
            limit insurer, employer, and individual choices with respect  
            to a variety of health benefits. Opponents indicate health  
            mandates can hinder compliance with evidence-based medical  
            standards that reflect new medical technology or other  
            advances in knowledge.  When considered together, mandates may  
            also hinder the ability of insurers and employers to offer a  
            wide range of affordable products to consumers with a variety  
            of health care needs.  
           
          4)Related Legislation  . There are more than two dozen current law  
            health mandates, established over the last two decades, to  
            provide coverage for specified services such as cancer  
            screenings and treatment. There are another handful of  
            mandates to offer coverage for a number of other health  
            services.  
           
          5)Other Health Mandates in the Current Session . There are nine  
            health mandates under legislative consideration this year,  








                                                                  SB 630
                                                                 Page  3

            including SB 630. Other proposed health mandates include: 

             a)   SB 161 (Wright): chemotherapy treatment- also being  
               heard in this committee today
             b)   AB 56 (Portantino): mammography notification- pending in  
               the Senate
             c)   AB 98 (De La Torre): maternity coverage- pending in the  
               Senate
             d)   AB 163 (Emmerson): amino acid-based elemental formulas-  
               held on the Suspense File of this Committee
             e)   AB 214 (Chesbro): durable medical equipment coverage-  
               held on the Suspense File of this Committee
             f)   AB 244 (Beall): mental health parity- pending in the  
               Senate
             g)   AB 259 (Skinner): access to nurse midwives- pending in  
               the Assembly Health Committee
             h)   AB 513 (De Leon): lactation consultant coverage- pending  
               in the Senate

            Two other bills address specification of current law mandates  
            with respect to minimum coverage or loosening of current law  
            mandates. These two bills are: 

             a)   AB 786 (Jones): standardization of individual market  
               products- pending in the Senate 
             b)   SB 92 (Aanestad): out-of-state carrier coverage- failed  
               passage in the Senate Health Committee. 


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Mary Ader / APPR. / (916) 319-2081