BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 428
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 11, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                  AB 428 (Portantino) - As Amended:  April 27, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                              HealthVote:13-6

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

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires health plan contracts and health insurance 
          policies to cover fertility preservation services when fertility 
          may be lost due to a medical intervention.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)According to the California Health Benefits Review Program 
            (CHBRP), state costs of $1.3 million ($670,000 GF) for 
            Medi-Cal managed care plans, plans provided through the 
            Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB), and CalPERS HMOs 
            plans. 

          2)Increased employer-funded premium costs in the private 
            insurance market of approximately $4.9 million.

          3)Increased premium expenditures by employees and individuals 
            purchasing insurance of $2.3 million, and cost-sharing of $1.2 
            million for newly covered benefits. Increased costs are 
            estimated to be offset by a reduction in out-of-pocket costs 
            for policyholders of $3.2 million. 

          4)Federal regulations implementing the federal health reform 
            law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) 
            (PL-111-148), may impact the costs of this bill in future 
            years.  Since fertility preservation services are not commonly 
            covered services, it seems likely that this bill will result 
            in additional future state costs. These costs would likely not 
            exceed the low millions of dollars.

           COMMENTS  









                                                                  AB 428
                                                                  Page  2

           1)Rationale  . According to the author, the intent of this bill is 
            to reduce the financial burden associated with fertility 
            preservation treatments among those undergoing treatment for 
            cancer and other diseases, and to ensure that treatment 
            decisions are based on medical effectiveness and not on the 
            risk of fertility loss.  CHBRP indicates that the most 
            commonly fertility preservation services cost approximately 
            $400 for men and $15,000 for women.  

           2)Coverage under current law.   Current law requires plans and 
            insurers to offer coverage of infertility services to group 
            purchasers, but does not require group purchasers to provide 
            infertility coverage. This bill does not affect coverage for 
            infertility services.  

            The author of this bill indicates that other iatrogenic 
            conditions (conditions caused by medical treatment) such as 
            breast reconstruction after mastectomy are commonly covered. 
            However, CHBRP estimates that only 5% of individuals enrolled 
            in group insurance currently have coverage for iatrogenic 
            infertility.  

          3)Mandates and the Affordable Care Act (ACA)  .  The ACA creates 
            new state-run health insurance exchanges that will likely 
            provide coverage to millions of Californians beginning in 
            2014, and requires that health plans offered through an 
            exchange cover certain categories of benefits, called 
            Essential Health Benefits (EHBs). The federal Secretary of 
            Health and Human Services (HSS) is expected to publish 
            guidance later in 2011 and 2012 that will further define these 
            categories. These definitions will have important fiscal 
            implications for the state.  

            The ACA specifies that if states require plans in the exchange 
            to offer additional benefits that go beyond the defined EHBs, 
            then states must pay the additional cost related to those 
            mandates. At this time, there are a number of outstanding 
            questions related to how federally defined EHBs will interact 
            with state-level benefit mandates. 

            Since the EHB package will be based on what is covered in a 
            typical employer plan and most employers currently do not 
            cover fertility preservation, it is likely that the mandate in 
            this bill will exceed the federally defined EHBs. Therefore, 
            it seems likely that there will be future state costs 








                                                                  AB 428
                                                                  Page  3

            associated with the mandate that plans in the exchange provide 
            coverage for fertility preservation services.
           
          4)Other Mandates in the Current Session  . There are 14 health 
            mandates proposed this year, including AB 72. Other mandates 
            in the current session include: 

             a)   AB 137 (Portantino): Mammography
             b)   AB 154 (Beall): Mental Health Services
             c)   AB 171 (Beall): Autism
             d)   AB 185 (Hernandez): Maternity Services 
             e)   AB 310 (Ma): Prescription Drugs
             f)   AB 369 (Huffman): Pain Prescriptions 
             g)   AB 428 (Portantino): Fertility Preservation
             h)   AB 652 (Mitchell): Child Health Assessments
             i)   AB 1000 (Perea): Cancer Treatment
             j)   SB 136 (Yee): Tobacco Cessation
             aa)  SB 155 (Evans): Maternity Services
             bb)  SB 173 (Simitian): Mammograms
             cc)  SB 255 (Pavley): Breast Cancer

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081