BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 757
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 757 (Lieu)
As Amended August 22, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :25-13
HEALTH 13-5 JUDICIARY 6-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Monning, Ammiano, Atkins, |Ayes:|Feuer, Atkins, Dickinson, |
| |Bonilla, Eng, Gordon, | |Huber, Monning, |
| |Hayashi, | |Wieckowski |
| |Roger Hern�ndez, Bonnie | | |
| |Lowenthal, Mitchell, Pan, | | |
| |V. Manuel P�rez, Williams | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Logue, Garrick, Mansoor, |Nays:|Wagner, Beth Gaines, |
| |Nestande, Silva | |Jones |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Bradford, Charles |
| |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | |
|-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires every group health care service plan (health
plan) contract and every policy or certificate of group health
insurance marketed, issued, or delivered to a resident of this
state, regardless of the situs of the contract to comply with
existing law that provides for equal coverage for registered
domestic partners. Additionally, this bill prohibits such
contracts, policies, or certificates of an employee, subscriber,
insured, or policyholder from discriminating in coverage between
SB 757
Page 2
different sex and same sex spouses and domestic partners and
states that the prohibitions and requirements imposed by this
bill are in addition to any other prohibitions and requirements
imposed by existing law.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Potential minor, absorbable costs to the Department of Managed
Health Care and California Department Insurance related to
ensuring carrier compliance with the provisions of this bill
that states that policies and plan contracts may not
discriminate on the basis of the sex of spouses or domestic
partners.
2)As it is unclear how the provisions of this bill that apply to
out-of-state carriers can be enforced by state regulators,
there is no anticipated direct state fiscal impact for
enforcement.
COMMENTS : According to the author, California has established
strong laws prohibiting discrimination in the issuance of
insurance policies in the state. Existing law requires
California-based insurers to provide the same coverage to
domestic partners that they provide to spouses.
California-based insurers must comply with California's
antidiscrimination laws. However, some out-of-state insurance
companies are attempting to evade complying with the California
law that prohibits the sale or issuance of discriminatory
insurance policies. Some out-of-state insurance companies are
refusing to insure domestic partners of gay and lesbian
Californians, despite clear intent of the California Legislature
to prohibit the sale of any such discriminatory policy in
California. Multi-state companies that do business in
California often contract with out-of-state insurance companies
to provide coverage for their employees. Because some of these
out-of-state insurance companies believe there is a loophole in
the law, they are discriminating against employees who live in
California and who are in a domestic partnership by refusing to
provide equal coverage to domestic partners. Because of this
practice, California-based insurance companies are at a
disadvantage in the marketplace because of the price savings
available to out-of-state companies that sell discriminatory
policies.
SB 757
Page 3
This bill is sponsored by Equality California who writes the
goal of this bill is to ensure that out-of-state insurers
selling insurance in California abide by the same
nondiscrimination laws as California insurers. According to the
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
(CAMFT), the California Insurance Equality Act (Act) was passed
in 2004 requiring group health care plans and insurers to
provide equal coverage to registered domestic partners. CAMFT
provides a quote from then Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi
that the Act established a necessary and consistent standard of
non-discrimination in insurance in conformance with AB 205
(Goldberg), Chapter 421, Statutes of 2003, by ensuring that
insurance companies treat domestic partners in the same manner
as spouses in the purchase of insurance. While existing law
requires same coverage to registered domestic partners as that
of spouses, some out-of-state carriers do not comply and refuse
to insure the registered domestic partner of California
residents.
AB 119 (Jones), Chapter 365, Statutes of 2009, prohibits health
plans and health insurers from charging a premium, price, or
charge differential for health care coverage because of the sex
of the prospective subscriber, enrollee, policyholder, or
insured. AB 1586, (Koretz), Chapter 421, Statutes of 2005,
defines the term "sex," in existing law that prohibits health
plans and insurers from specified discriminatory acts, to have
the same meaning as "gender," as defined under the Penal Code,
as specified. AB 2204 (Kehoe), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2004,
enacts the Act which requires group health plans, health
insurance, and all forms of insurance to provide equal coverage
to registered domestic partners. AB 205 (Goldberg) seeks to
extend most of the rights and responsibilities available to
spouses solely available under state law to registered domestic
partners.
Analysis Prepared by : Teri Boughton / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097
FN: 0001939
SB 757
Page 4