BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
1088 (Price)
Hearing Date: 5/17/2010 Amended: 4/13/2010
Consultant: Katie Johnson Policy Vote: Health 5-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 1088 would require health care service plans
and health insurers that currently offer coverage to dependents
to offer that coverage to dependents who are less than 26 years
of age, pursuant to federal health care reform.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
Premium increases unknown, likely in the millions
General/*
of dollars; depends on employer
Special/
premium payment decision s
Other
CalPERS IT system updates unknown, potentially over
$50General/*
Special/
Other
*55 percent General Fund, 45 percent Special Funds and Other
Funds
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
This bill would implement a portion of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also know as federal health
care reform. PPACA requires health plans and insurance issuers
that offer dependent coverage to make that coverage available
until the adult child reaches the age of 26 beginning in the
policy or plan year after September 23, 2010.
This bill would require health care service plans and health
insurers, collectively carriers, to offer dependent coverage
until a dependent's 26th birthday. Employers that provide group
health care coverage for employees, including the State of
California, would not be required to pay the dependent's
premium, but could choose to pay it.
If the State of California, as an employer, were to choose to
pay the employer's share of premiums for the 23 - 26 year old
dependent population, it could cost the state up to
approximately $110 million in total funds that would be shared
55 percent General Fund, 45 percent special funds and other
funds to pay premiums for about 40,000 child dependents. As
employers, it is unclear whether or not the Senate, Assembly,
and the individual departments and agencies would decide
independently or collectively as legislative and executive
branches whether or not to pay the employer share of newly
eligible dependent premiums. The cost could be substantially
lower if most of the employers listed above chose not to pay the
premiums for this group and instead the dependents and their
families paid the full premiums. The California Public Employees
Retirement System (CalPERS), the entity that purchases health
care coverage on behalf of the state employees, could also see
unknown costs to update its computer systems to comply with this
bill and federal law.