BILL ANALYSIS
AB 107
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 1999
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL
SECURITY
Lou Correa, Chair
AB 107 (Knox) - As Amended: March 10, 1999
SUBJECT : Public employees' health benefits: domestic partners.
SUMMARY : Provides employers whose employees participate in the
California Public Employees; Retirement System's (CalPERS)
health care program (PEMHCA) the option to extend health
benefits coverage to the domestic partners of their employees
and annuitants. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes contracting agencies to elect to include with the
definition of "family member" persons who meet the definition
of "domestic partner" of an employee or annuitant of the
contracting agency when that person is duly registered as a
domestic partner. Requires election forms containing
specified information to be filed under penalty of perjury.
2)Provides for this option only upon election by the employer
(who contracts for PEMHCA coverage). May apply to employees
of the state, local public agencies or schools. The option to
elect is also available to the following employers: California
State University, the Judicial Council, the Senate and the
Assembly.
3)Requires employees to notify CalPERS upon the termination of
the domestic partnership. Employees who fail to notify
CalPERS are liable for costs incurred after the partnership is
terminated.
4)Defines a domestic partnership, exclusively for the purpose of
providing PEMHCA coverage, as meeting all of the following
criteria:
a) Both persons have a common residence.
b) One of the persons is enrolled as an employee or
annuitant of a contracting employer.
c) Both persons share the common necessities of life and
agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic
living expenses during the domestic partnership.
d) Neither person is married nor a member of another
AB 107
Page 2
domestic partnership.
e) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that
would prevent them from being married in this state.
f) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
EXISTING LAW : The Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care
Act (PEMHCA) authorizes the Board of Administration of CalPERS
to provide health benefits plan coverage to state and local
public employees and annuitants and their family members.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to CalPERS, because so many different
factors go into determining the cost to purchase health care for
CalPERS members, it is difficult to predict what impact the
addition of domestic partners to the pool will have. Published
data for employers who have implemented domestic partner
coverage indicate that there is no increase in utilization cost.
However, those studies have not included retirees which are
covered under the PEMHCA program.
Additionally, CalPERS estimates that enactment of this measure
would result in one-time administrative costs of $45,000 for
start-up.
COMMENTS : According to the author, a total of 550 organizations
in the United States and Canada recognize domestic partners of
employees and that at least 50 organizations that provide full
benefits to domestic partners have publicly traded stocks. Over
400 private sector companies, over 90 colleges and universities
and about 80 municipalities offer full or partial benefits to
domestic partners.
Companies and entities that offer domestic partner benefits
include: Apple Computer, AT&T, Bank of America, Levi-Strauss,
Kaiser, HBO, MCA/Universal, Microsoft, The New York Times,
Sprint, and Warner Brothers. California agencies and
jurisdictions which recognize domestic partners include:
Stanford University, UCLA, Alameda County, and the cities of
West Hollywood, Laguna Beach, Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Berkeley, and Sacramento.
This bill is sponsored by the City of West Hollywood, who
believes it will strengthen and protect families by promoting
better health care for those in committed, lasting
relationships. Supporters of the measure also contend that it
is necessary to acknowledge the different types of families that
AB 107
Page 3
exist, and that access to quality health care should be a basic
right of all Americans and should be expanded to domestic
partners. They also point out that increasing the "covered
lives" in health programs has the general effect of reducing
costs.
Supporters also state that since domestic partner coverage is
widespread in the private sector there is substantial actuarial
data to show that the pay out rate for health insurance policies
of domestic partners is no higher than the pay out rate for
other family members.
Finally, this bill is optional so that a CalPERS public agency
that does not wish to cover domestic partners is not required to
do so.
Opponents of the measure contend that "the historical family
arrangement works best for society. Employers, public and
private, have long recognized the advantage of covering an
employee's dependents. However, struggling families do not need
their tax burden increased to support public employees'
non-dependent adult friends."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
City of West Hollywood (sponsor)
California Professional Firefighters (co-sponsor)
Academic Senate of the California State University
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team
Asian Pacific Gays and Friends
Association of Bay Area Governments
California Alliance for Pride and Equality
California Church IMPACT
California Federation of Teachers
California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Nurses Association
California Organization of Police and Sheriffs
California School Employees Association
California State Employees Association
California Teachers Association
AB 107
Page 4
Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, UCLA
Center for Social Services - San Diego County
Christopher Street West
City of Oakland
Communications Workers of America, District 9 AFL-CIO
Community College League of California
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center of Orange County
Gays & Lesbians Initiating Dialogue & Equality
Human Rights Commission, City and County of San Francisco
L. A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Lambda GLBT Community Services
LAMBDA Letters Project, Boyce Hinman
Lesbian & Gay Men's Community Center of San Diego
Marin Municipal Water District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
National Organization for Women
Older Womens League of California
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians & Gays
People For the American Way
Planned Parenthood
PS Enterprises
Public Law Center
ResLife, UCLA, Jack Gibbons
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
San Francisco State University, College of Education
San Francisco State University, College of Humanities
Santa Barbara Stonewall Democratic Club
Ten Percent Newsmagazine, Hiyas Magilligan
The Anti-Violence Project
The Center - San Diego County
The National Latina/o Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender
Organization
Union of American Physicians & Dentists
United Transportation Union, AFL-CIO
West Hollywood Municipal Employees
West Hollywood Presbyterian Church
Wildcat International
Letters from numerous individuals
Opposition
Capitol Resource Institute
AB 107
Page 5
City of Camarillo
Committee on Moral Concerns
Institute for Creation Research
New Life Christian School
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E.R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957