BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 792 (Bonilla)
Hearing Date: 8/15/2011 Amended: 6/30/2011
Consultant: Katie Johnson Policy Vote: Health 5-3
Judiciary 3-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 792 would require courts, health care service
plans, health insurers, employers, and the Employment
Development Department (EDD) to provide a notice of the
availability of coverage in the California Health Benefit
Exchange (Exchange), effective January 1, 2014.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
EDD notices, IT, $11,700 - $29,900 ongoing annuallyGeneral
response to inquiries
about the Exchange
Potential state potentially significant, depending
onGeneral/
cost avoidance actual take up of coverage Federal/
or cost Other
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
This bill would require on various effective dates commencing
January 1, 2012, and ongoing, as specified, the courts, health
care service plans, health insurers, employers, and the
Employment Development Department (EDD) to provide a notice of
the availability of coverage in the California Health Benefit
Exchange (Exchange), effective January 1, 2014.
This bill would require health plans, health insurers, and
employers, for employees or dependents who have experienced a
death, loss of employment or a reduction in hours, divorce or
the loss of dependent status that results in a loss of health
insurance, to transfer information to the Exchange to initiate
AB 792 (Bonilla)
Page 1
an application for enrollment in the Exchange if the individual
consents. This bill would require an individual electing to
decline coverage from the Exchange to do so in writing.
There would likely be General Fund cost pressures to EDD of
about $11.7 million to $29.9 million ongoing depending on
non-recessionary versus recessionary scenarios to send notices,
collect and develop information technology (IT) to convey data
to the Exchange, and to obtain consent. This bill specifies that
the EDD portion of these provisions would be implemented
consistent with federal guidance and be operative only to the
extent that it is funded out of non-General Fund moneys.
However, no other funding source has been identified. Any costs
to the courts and to the State Disability Insurance program
would be minor and absorbable.
There could be cost avoidance to the extent that individuals who
would have otherwise enrolled in state programs such as the
Major Risk Medical Insurance Program (MRMIP), Access for Infants
and Mothers program (AIM), the Preexisting Condition Insurance
Program (PCIP), and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP),
purchase health care coverage through the Exchange. However, to
the extent that individuals, upon application to the Exchange,
are found eligible for state programs such as those listed above
or Medi-Cal or the Healthy Families Program, there could be
significant state health care coverage costs.
ADAP and other publicly funded programs administered by the
California Department of Public Health costs would be shared
amongst a variety of state and federal funds; Medi-Cal costs
would be shared 50 percent General Fund and 50 percent federal
funds, except that newly eligible Medi-Cal individuals' coverage
would be paid by 100 percent federal funds until 2016; Healthy
Families Program costs would be shared 35 percent General Fund
and 65 percent federal funds; AIM would be shared 35 percent
state Proposition 99 funds and 65 percent federal funds; MRMIP
would be shared state Proposition 99 funds and subscriber
premiums; PCIP would be funded 100 percent federal funds and
shares of enrollee premiums; Family Planning, Access, Care, and
Treatment program costs would be shared 10 percent General Fund
and 90 percent federal funds. Exchange costs would consist of
enrollee premiums and potentially federal subsidies.
AB 792 (Bonilla)
Page 2