BILL ANALYSIS
AB 107
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 107 (Knox)
As Amended May 24, 1999
Majority vote
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 14-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Correa, Dutra, Firebaugh, |Ayes:|Migden, Corbett, Davis, |
| |Honda, Knox | |Hertzberg, Kuehl, Papan, |
| | | |Aroner, Shelley, |
| | | |Steinberg, Thomson, |
| | | |Wesson, Wiggins, Wright, |
| | | |Longville |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Thompson, Pescetti |Nays:|Brewer, Ashburn, |
| | | |Campbell, Ackerman, |
| | | |Runner, Zettel |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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: a)
California State University; b) the Judicial Council; c) the
Senate; and, d) the Assembly.
3)Specifies that for those employees who are members of
bargaining units, domestic partner coverage is only applicable
if it has been adopted in a signed memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between their employer and the recognized employee
AB 107
Page 2
organization.
4)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.
5)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 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
domestic partnership;
e) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that
would prevent them from being married in this state; and,
f) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
EXISTING LAW authorizes, under the Public Employees' Medical and
Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA), 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 :
1)No direct state costs, because this bill merely authorizes an
optional benefit that becomes effective only upon ratification
of a MOU between the state and employee bargaining units.
CalPERs indicates that if the state agreed to provide the
benefit, the state employer contribution would increase by
about $130 per month per domestic partner. Although the
number of employees that would register domestic partners
under this bill cannot be predicted, total state costs likely
would exceed $200,000 annually.
AB 107
Page 3
2)This bill imposes a state-mandated local program by requiring
certain forms to be filed under penalty of perjury. Local law
enforcement costs would not be state-reimbursable.
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, which
believes it will strengthen and protect families by promoting
better health care for those in committed, lasting
relationships. Supporters of this bill also contend that it is
necessary to acknowledge the different types of families that
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
AB 107
Page 4
employee's dependents. However, struggling families do not need
their tax burden increased to support public employees'
non-dependent adult friends."
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E.R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN: 0000924