BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  SB 1088|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                              UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 1088
          Author:   Price (D)
          Amended:  8/20/10
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE  :  5-0, 4/21/10
          AYES:  Alquist, Leno, Negrete McLeod, Pavley, Romero
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Strickland, Aanestad, Cedillo, Cox

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  7-3, 5/27/10
          AYES:  Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
          NOES:  Denham, Walters, Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Cox

           SENATE FLOOR  :  21-13, 6/02/10
          AYES:  Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier,  
            Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal,  
            Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Romero, Simitian,  
            Steinberg, Wolk, Yee
          NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Cogdill, Cox, Denham, Dutton,  
            Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Runner, Strickland, Walters,  
            Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Correa, Oropeza, Wiggins, Wright,  
            Vacancy, Vacancy

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  50-27, 8/23/10 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Health care coverage

           SOURCE  :     Author

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1088
                                                                Page  
          2


           DIGEST  :    This bill prohibits, with specified exceptions,  
          the limiting age for dependents covered by health plan  
          contracts and health insurance policies from being less  
          than 26 years of age beginning on or after September 23,  
          2010, and prohibits health plan contracts and health  
          insurance policies from being required to cover a child of  
          a child receiving dependent coverage.

           Assembly Amendments  specified timelines for health care  
          service plan contracts for those 26 years of age, clarified  
          circumstances for young adults who previously lost or were  
          denied dependent health coverage, and required health plans  
          to provide written notice related to those circumstances.

           ANALYSIS :     Existing federal law:

          Existing law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable  
          Care Act (the federal health reform act), (Public Law  
          111-148), among other things, requires group health plans,  
          and health insurers offering group and individual policies,  
          to allow young people, up to their 26th birthday, to remain  
          on their parents' health plan contract or health insurance  
          policy beginning October 1, 2010.  
          The federal health reform act also directs the federal  
          Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate  
          regulations to define "dependents."

          Existing law, the federal Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the  
          federal health reform reconciliation act), (Public Law  
          111-152) makes changes to the federal health reform act  
          and, among other things, clarifies the definition of an  
          adult dependent, as it relates to the income definition  
          under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as any child of a  
          taxpayer who, as of the end of the taxable year, has not  
          attained their 27th birthday.

          Provisions in the federal health reform reconciliation act  
          specify that the dependent coverage provisions in federal  
          health reform apply to married individuals who are still  
          dependent on his or her parent.

          Existing state law:








                                                               SB 1088
                                                                Page  
          3

          Existing law provides for the regulation of health care  
          health plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and  
          for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of  
          Insurance.  

          Existing law allows for the use of a limiting age (as  
          specified in the health plan contract or health insurance  
          policy) as a condition of coverage for dependents.   
          Existing law also specifically prohibits health plan  
          contracts and health insurance policies that provide  
          dependent coverage, where coverage terminates upon  
          attainment of the limiting age specified in the contract or  
          policy, from terminating coverage for a child who meets  
          certain conditions, as specified.

          Existing law prevents a health plan or health insurer from  
          excluding any eligible dependent who would otherwise be  
          entitled to health care services on the basis of their  
          health status, medical condition, the claims experience,  
          the medical history, the genetic information, or the  
          disability or evidence of insurability including conditions  
          arising out of acts of domestic violence of that employee  
          or dependent, except in the case of a "late enrollee," or  
          for satisfaction of a preexisting condition clause in the  
          case of initial coverage of an eligible employee.  Existing  
          law also defines "late enrollee" and "preexisting  
          condition."

          This bill:

          1. Prohibits the limiting age for dependents covered by  
             health plan contracts and health insurance policies from  
             being less than 26 years of age with respect to plan and  
             policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010,  
             except under specified circumstances. 

          2. Permits, for plan and policy years beginning before  
             January 1, 2014, group health plan contracts and group  
             health insurance policies that qualify as grandfathered  
             health plans under federal law, and that make available  
             dependent coverage of children, to exclude from coverage  
             an adult child who has not attained the age of 26 years  
             only if the adult child is eligible to enroll in an  
             employer-sponsored health plan other than a group health  







                                                               SB 1088
                                                                Page  
          4

             plan of a parent. 

          3. Clarifies circumstances of coverage for young adults who  
             previously lost or were denied dependent health  
             coverage, consistent with the recently enacted federal  
             Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and any  
             additional federal guidance or regulations issued by the  
             U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

          4. Requires health plans and health insurers to provide  
             written notice in accordance with 3) above and allows  
             the notice to be provided to the dependent's parent on  
             behalf of the dependent.  Requires the notice to be  
             prominent if it is included with enrollment materials  
             for a group plan or policy. 

          5. Provides that a dependent enrolling in a group plan or  
             policy for coverage pursuant to this bill must be  
             treated as a special enrollee, as specified. 

          6. Requires health plans and health insurers to offer the  
             recipient of the notice all of the benefit packages  
             available to similarly situated individuals who did not  
             lose coverage by reason of cessation of dependent  
             status. Specifies that any difference in benefits or  
             cost-sharing requirements constitutes a different  
             benefit package. 

          7. Prohibits dependents enrolling in coverage provided by  
             group plan and policies pursuant to 6) above from being  
             required to pay more for coverage than similarly  
             situated individuals who did not lose coverage by reason  
             of cessation of dependent status. 

          8. Clarifies that nothing in this bill requires a plan  
             contract or insurance policy to cover a child of a  
             covered dependent. 

          9. Prohibits this bill from being construed to modify the  
             definition of "dependent" for tax treatment purposes, as  
             specified. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  Yes







                                                               SB 1088
                                                                Page  
          5


          According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, annual  
          increased costs of $85 million General Fund to the  
          California Public Employees' Retirement System to provide  
          the employer share of health premium costs to 29,000 young  
          adults gaining access to health coverage through the  
          increase in the limiting age established by this bill. 

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/24/10)

          AARP
          ACOG
          AFSCME
          California School Employees Association
          California State Association of Counties
          CMA
          Health Access

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/24/10)

          ACHLIC
          Anthem Blue Cross
          California Association of Health Plans

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :    According to the author's office,  
          recently passed federal health care legislation requires  
          insurers to expand coverage to dependents up to their 26th  
          birthday, beginning in September 2010.  This bill seeks to  
          provide statutory implementation guidelines for the State  
          of California to comply with federal law.

          According to research, young adults compose one of the  
          largest and fastest growing segments of the uninsured.   
          Young adults often lose health coverage at age 19, as a  
          result of being dropped from their parent's policy, or  
          because of losing eligibility for public programs, like  
          Medi-Cal or Healthy Families.  

          In addition, the author points out that one-third of  
          college graduates will be uninsured in the year following  
          graduation.  Only half of 19 to 29 year olds are eligible  
          for coverage offered by their employers as compared to 75  
          percent of 30 to 64 year old workers.








                                                               SB 1088
                                                                Page  
          6

          The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists  
          (ACOG) writes in support, stating that SB 1088 provides an  
          avenue for young adults, still dependent on their parents  
          for financial support, to be able to maintain coverage  
          during the transition to independence.  ACOG further states  
          that it is particularly important for young women to  
          maintain coverage, as the mid-twenties are crucial years  
          for reproductive health.

          Writing in support, the California Medical Association  
          states that young adults in this age group are particularly  
          vulnerable to being uninsured due to not having access to  
          health coverage through their employer or being unable to  
          afford to buy comprehensive coverage.  As a result, they  
          are often targeted by health plan marketing of policies  
          with high-deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, or skinny  
          policies that do not offer meaningful coverage and can lead  
          to high medical debt when a serious health issue arises.   
          CMA further argues that this bill ensures that the health  
          insurance marketplace works for young people who may be  
          struggling to make ends meet and get their careers off the  
          ground.

          Health Access California also supports the bill, stating  
          that young adults represent the largest and fastest growing  
          segment among the uninsured:  30 percent of the uninsured  
          are young adults, though they represent just 17 percent of  
          the population generally, according to a study by the  
          Commonwealth Fund.  Furthermore, Health Access points out  
          that SB 1088 takes the first step in implementing  
          provisions in federal health reform around dependent  
          coverage.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    Anthem Blue Cross (Blue Cross)  
          writes in opposition, stating that, despite a provision  
          allowing insurers to institute a surcharge for families  
          with overage dependents, this bill will result in higher  
          premiums for families during challenging economic times.   
          Blue Cross believes that insurers would not be able to  
          establish a surcharge and, instead, will increase the cost  
          of family coverage to account for a larger average family  
          size and the adverse selection associated with overage  
          dependents in a guaranteed issue environment.  Blue Cross  
          points out that when similar legislation passed in  







                                                               SB 1088
                                                                Page  
          7

          Colorado, it accounted for a premium increase of 1.5-2  
          percent.  Blue Cross also believes that the definition of  
          dependent may run afoul of federal rules related to health  
          care reform.

          The Association of California Life & Health Insurance  
          Companies (ACLHIC) opposes the bill as it makes some  
          deviations from federal legislation.  For instance, the  
          federal law only requires health insurers that currently  
          provide dependent coverage to make coverage available to  
          dependents until age 26, this bill goes beyond that and  
          requires all insurers to offer extended dependent coverage,  
          regardless of whether they currently offer the coverage.   
          ACLHIC states that federal law is sufficient, and it would  
          be easier and more cost efficient to only require health  
          insurers to comply with one federal law.


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  
          AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,  
            Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles  
            Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De  
            Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Gatto,  
            Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones,  
            Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, V.  
            Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,  
            Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,  
            Yamada, John A. Perez
          NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,  
            Conway, Cook, DeVore, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick,  
            Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller,  
            Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Audra  
            Strickland, Tran, Villines
          NO VOTE RECORDED: Furutani, Vacancy, Vacancy


          CTW:nl  8/24/10   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****