NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
|
SPONSOR: |
Stewart |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
696/aHBIC/aHJC/aHFl#1 |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Insurance Coverage of Domestic Partners |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
|
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Narrative |
|
|
Responses
Received From
General
Service Department (GSD)
Public
School Insurance Authority (PSIA)
Retiree
Health Care Authority (RHCA)
Health
Policy Commission (HPC)
Human
Services Department (HSD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of HFl Amendment
The House Floor Amendment #1 adds the restriction that domestic partners may not be related to each other by blood. The amendment removes the definition that a "domestic partner" is included in the term "spouse."
The amendment
allows a domestic partner to insure their domestic partner for a life or health
individual insurance contract without obtaining the written consent of the
insured partner.
Synopsis of HJC
Amendment
The
House Judiciary Committee amendment makes a spelling correction.
Synopsis of HBIC
Amendment
The House Business & Industry Committee amendment expands the insurance coverage to persons in an opposite-sex relationship.
The HBIC amendment adds the requirements that in order
for a relationship to be covered, the partners must have been cohabitating for
a minimum of six months and must be financially interdependent.
The
HBIC also adds that an affidavit of domestic partnership may be required by an
insurer.
Synopsis
of Original Bill
House Bill 696 allows
coverage of same-sex domestic partners under insurance policies.
HB 696 defines
“domestic partner’ as those over age 18, cohabitating, emotionally interdependent
and intending to reside together indefinitely. A domestic partner and any child
of either domestic partner is considered a family member in this bill.
HB 696 expands the
Insurable Interest statute on personal insurance to include domestic
partners. It permits Life and Health
insurance contracts to be written on a domestic partner without the domestic
partner’s consent. It permits individual
health insurance contracts on families to cover domestic partners.
HB 696 adds new
material allowing coverage for domestic partners and domestic partners’ children
to be an option under a group health policy, including a small group
policy. It prohibits insurance companies
from excluding coverage for specific domestic partners, if the group selects
the optional coverage.
Significant
Issues
The growth of domestic partner benefits is
partly a consequence of changing domestic relationships. For example, a legally
married couple headed 76 % of households in the
HB 696 specifies health and life insurance only
as required domestic partner coverage. No mention is made of long-term care
insurance, dental, or vision insurance.
Employer policies and laws in other states
banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status
have been used to argue that employers are required to offer domestic partner
benefits
HB 696 is silent with respect to coverage for
unmarried heterosexual couples, which might be construed as discriminatory on
the basis of sexual orientation or marital status.
There is a concern employees or retirees will
attempt to exploit the system by enrolling sick relatives or friends. However,
a strict enrollment process to determine eligibility should be sufficient to
prevent fraud.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The HPC states employers currently offering
benefits to domestic partners, regardless of whether coverage is extended to
same-sex or opposite-sex domestic partners, have not experienced higher risks
or costs in health insurance coverage than they have with legally married
spouses. The RHC, PSIA and GSD agree insurance premiums will not increase
significantly, if at all.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The RHCA says the addition of new classes of eligible
participants will further strain an already overworked staff and make it
difficult to provide quality, timely service. They are concerned about the difficulty of
certifying and policing the status of domestic partners and dependent children,
since there are few such mechanisms as for spouses (e.g., marriage certificate,
birth certificate). The PSIA and GSD have the same issues.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
GSD suggested the following:
Page 1, line 20, add after “cohabiting” for a
minimum of six months.
Page
1, line 21, add before the word “interdependent” and financially
Page
2, line 1, add new sentence “An affidavit of domestic partnership may be
required.”