Which Insurance-Related Bills Met the California Deadline for Passage?

The deadline for California Assembly and Senate bills to pass their respected houses was May 30, 2014. Bills that met the deadline are eligible for enactment this year.

Bills that met the May 30 deadline will now be considered by the opposing house, with the regular legislative session ending on August 31.

Here are summaries of noteworthy insurance-related bills that met the May 30 deadline for passage.

Assembly Bills

AB 1234 would exempt from discovery or from admission in civil litigation information pertaining to an insurer that is a member of an insurance holding company system when that information is included in a registration statement or obtained by or disclosed to the insurance commissioner in the course of an examination or investigation.

AB 1804 would require private passenger auto insurers, homeowners insurers, and insurers providing individual disability income insurance policies to maintain a process which allows an insured to designate an additional person to receive notice of lapse, termination, expiration, non-renewal, or cancellation of a policy for nonpayment of premium.

AB 2064 would revise the disclosure language which must be included in a homeowners insurer’s mandatory offer of earthquake insurance. AB 2064 also would increase the statutory cap on the California Earthquake Authority’s operating expenses from 3% of its premium income to 5% of its premium income.

AB 2128 would extend the sunset date on statutory provisions relating to the Department of Insurance’s California Organized Investment Network (COIN) program from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2020.

AB 2293 would require a transportation network company to advise its participating drivers of the company’s insurance coverage and limits of liability. AB 2293 defines a “transportation network company” as an organization “that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles.” AB 2293 provides that a transportation network company’s insurance policy is the primary policy coverage and that a transportation network company’s policy shall apply in the event of a loss or injury when a participating driver logs on to a transportation network company’s application program.  

AB 2734 would make changes to the Insurance Code which the Assembly Insurance Committee characterizes as “noncontroversial.” Among other changes, AB 2734 would 1) increase from $5,000 to $20,000 the threshold which triggers the obligation on a surplus lines broker or insurer to make tax payments in quarterly installments, 2) clarify what constitutes a “California business” for purposes of insurers’ duty to file information with the insurance commissioner concerning procurement contracts with minority, women, and disabled veteran-owned businesses, and 3) change the annual data call on private passenger auto insurance information to an every-other-year data call.

AB 2735 would set forth in statute that a homeowner who has purchased an earthquake insurance policy that does not satisfy the standard coverage requirement must be reminded by the insurer at renewal that the homeowner has the right to purchase a policy that meets the standard coverage requirement.

Senate Bills

SB 1034 would make clear that a health plan or insurer offering group coverage may not impose a separate waiting period in addition to the 90-day waiting period that the federal Affordable Care Act allows an employer to use.

SB 1205 would require the Department of Insurance’s curriculum board to develop or recommend a course of study for agents and brokers on commercial earthquake risk management.

SB 1273 would extend the sunset date on the California Low-Cost Automobile Insurance Program from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2020. SB 1273 also would amend several statutory provisions relating to the program. Among other changes to the program, AB 1273 would repeal the $20,000 cap on the value of a vehicle insured under the program and would allow a person who has fewer than three years of driving history to qualify for coverage under the program.

SB 1446 would allow a small employer health plan or a small employer health insurance policy in effect on December 31, 2013, that does not qualify as a grandfathered health plan under the federal Affordable Care Act, to be renewed until January 1, 2015, and to continue to be in force until December 31, 2016.

Update: California Health Insurance Initiative Will Be on the Ballot in November 2014

On June 28, we reported that a proposed initiative that would bring prior approval of rates for health insurance to California had failed to qualify for the November 2012 California ballot. 

An earlier blog addressed in more detail that the the initiative would have:

  1. given the California Insurance Commissioner the power to approve health insurance rates proposed after November 6, 2012;
  2. required health insurers’ rate applications to be accompanied by a sworn statement by the insurer’s chief executive officer declaring that the contents of the application were accurate and complied in all respects with California law; and
  3. required health insurers to pay refunds with interest if the Commissioner determined that the company’s rates were excessive.

While the initiative failed to qualify for the November 2012 ballot, we observed that the backers of the initiative were seeking to obtain the requisite number of valid signatures to place the initiative on the next general election ballot in November 2014.

According to the Secretary of State, on August 23, 2012, the initiative qualified for the general election to occur on November 4, 2014.

This will ensure plenty of time for both sides to present to the California electorate their arguments in favor of and against the as-of-yet un-numbered proposition.  We will continue to update developments on this ballot initiative.    

California Health Insurance Initiative Fails to Qualify for November Ballot

By Larry Golub and Sam Sorich

On the day the Affordable Care Act was found to be constitutional by the United States Supreme Court, the backers of a proposed initiative that would bring prior approval of rates for health insurance to California announced that their initiative had failed to qualify for the November 2012 California ballot.

We initially reported on this proposed initiative back in January. Among other things, the initiative would have given the California Insurance Commissioner the power to approve health insurance rates proposed after November 6, 2012, would have required health insurers’ rate applications to be accompanied by a sworn statement by the insurer’s chief executive officer declaring that the contents of the application were accurate and complied in all respects with California law, and would have required health insurers to pay refunds with interest if the Commissioner determined that the company’s rates were excessive.

According to the Sacramento Bee, when Los Angeles County submitted its random-sample count of valid signatures, it reported that only 66.6% of signatures were valid, which fell short of the 69% threshold needed to have enough valid signatures statewide to avoid a full count.

Jamie Court, the President of Consumer Watchdog, the proponent of the measure,sought to downplay the failure to qualify for the upcoming November ballot, and stated that the close number of valid signatures will “make the initiative all but certain to appear on the next general election ballot after November,” which will occur in 2014.

California Assembly Passes Bill Requiring Health Insurance Filing and Disclosures

On May 3, 2012, the California Assembly passed a bill that would require health insurers that are regulated by the Department of Insurance to submit information to the department when the insurer plans to terminate its contract with a provider group or hospital. The bill also would require insurers to provide insureds with additional disclosures. The 80-member Assembly passed Assembly Bill 2152 with a 46-25 vote.

AB 2152, which is sponsored by the Department of Insurance, has three major elements.

  1. The bill would require a health insurer to notify the Department of Insurance at least 75 days before the insurer terminates its contract with a provider group or hospital to provide services at alternative rates of payment. The department would have the authority to review and approve the written notice that the insurer proposes to send to the insureds affected by the termination. 
  2. AB 2152 would require a health insurer to include in its disclosure form a statement clearly describing the basic method of reimbursement made to its contracting providers of health care services, and whether financial bonuses or any other incentives are used. 
  3. AB 2152 would require health insurance policies to include additional notices and disclosures. 

The bill is now waiting to be assigned to a Senate committee. 

Originally published on Barger & Wolen's Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law blog.

 

New York Department of Financial Services Launches Industry-wide Audit of Health Insurance Rates

The New York Department of Financial Services “DFS”) will audit the accuracy of the data used by insurers and health maintenance organizations to request health insurance rate increases (see press release). 

In connection therewith, health insurers must submit their rate increase proposals to the DFS for “prior approval.” The DFS can approve, reduce or reject the requests.

The audits will, among other things, allow the regulators to:

  1. ascertain if insurers are accurately allocating administrative costs and producer commissions;
  2. ensure that insurers have proper controls and oversight in place to make certain that data is reliable and accurate; and
  3. assist in identifying areas where action can be taken to help control costs.

The DFS will conduct on-site audits of health insurers and HMOs selling health insurance plans regulated by the state – employer, small group and individual policies.

The DFS has announced that:

[t]he audits will review selected rate requests that have already been filed. Insurers will not know beforehand whether their proposals will be the subject of an audit. Data regarding claims, insurer administrative expenses, premiums and claims reserves will be examined. The Department will hire a private accounting firm to assist DFS personnel in conducting the audits.”

 

Emergency Regulation to Enforce Medical Loss Ratio in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 Made Permanent

On Thursday February 9, 2012, California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones announced that he had obtained approval from the California Office of Administrative Law to make permanent the emergency regulation issued in 2011 allowing the Department of Insurance (the “Department”) to enforce the medical loss ratio guidelines in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (“PPACA”) (which we previously discussed here). 

As of January 1, 2011, the PPACA required all health insurers in the individual market to maintain an 80% medical loss ratio.

The Department obtained approval to make permanent its amendment to 10 California Code of Regulations § 2222.12 to reflect this requirement. A copy of the text of the regulation can be viewed here

This permanent regulation went into effect on February 8, 2012. 

The regulation adopted by the Department contains more stringent requirements than PPACA, as it allows the Department to evaluate whether the 80% medical loss ratio will be met at the time a rate is filed with the Department, rather than waiting until the end of the year to determine if this ratio was satisfied.

Originally posted to Barger & Wolen's Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law blog.

Signatures May Be Collected for California Health Insurance Initiative

By Sam Sorich and Larry Golub

On January 4, 2012, the California Secretary of State announced that signatures may be collected for a proposed initiative which would bring prior approval of rates for health insurance to California, and also amend the existing regulation of automobile and homeowners insurance.

Jamie Court, the President of Consumer Watchdog, is the proponent of the measure, termed the Insurance Rate Public Justification and Accountability Act. There were actually two virtually identical versions of the initiative submitted to (and allowed to proceed to collect signatures by) the Secretary of State, file numbers 11-0070 and 11-0072, but it is expected that Consumer Watchdog will pursue signature gathering for only the second version of the initiative.  (In fact, its website only links to the second version of the initiative.)

In order to qualify for the November 6, 2012 ballot, backers of an initiative must file 504,760 valid signatures in support of the measure. The deadline for submitting signatures for the initiative is June 4, 2012.

Among other things, the initiative would give the California Insurance Commissioner the power to approve health insurance rates proposed after November 6, 2012. The rate approval statutes enacted by Proposition 103 in 1988 for most property and casualty insurance would be made applicable to health insurance. A health insurer’s rate application would have to be accompanied by a sworn statement by insurer’s chief executive officer declaring that the contents of the application are accurate and comply in all respects with California law.

The initiative would require a health insurance company to pay refunds with interest if the insurance commissioner determines that the company’s rates are excessive; this requirement would apply to rates in effect on November 6, 2012 and rates in effect after that date.

Large group health insurance policies would be excluded from the scope of the initiative unless any one of four specified conditions exists; two of the conditions relate to the level of the proposed rate increase.

For health insurance, as well as automobile and homeowners insurance, the initiative would prohibit insurers from using the absence of prior insurance coverage or a person’s credit history as a rating factor or a criterion for determining insurance eligibility.

The initiative specifies that it may be amended only (1) by the Legislature if the legislation furthers the initiative’s purposes and is passed by a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and the Senate or (2) by another voter ballot initiative.

In its summary of the fiscal effects of the initiative if approved by the voters, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the measure would increase “state administrative costs in the low tens of millions of dollars annually to regulate health insurance rates, funded with revenues collected from filing fees paid by health insurance companies.”

Collateral Source Rule Inapplicable When Injured Person's Medical Expenses are Discounted by Health Insurer

In a long-awaited, and nearly unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court has held that an injured plaintiff whose medical expenses are paid through private health insurance may recover as economic damages no more than the amounts paid by the plaintiff’s insurer for those medical services, and that this discounted amount does not fall within the collateral source rule. The decision is Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., decided August 18, 2011.

Rebecca Howell was injured in an automobile accident caused by a driver of Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. The total amount billed by her medical providers for her medical care up to the time of trial was $189,978.63, but due to the preexisting contracts those providers had entered into with Howell’s health insurer, the bills were reduced by $130,286.90, such that the amounts paid to (and accepted by) the providers was only $59,691.73. 

At trial, Howell sought to recover the full amount of her medical bills, not the amount that her medical providers had accepted. While allowing Howell to present her the full-billed amounts to the jury, the trial court reduced those amounts in post-trial motion to the $59,691.73 paid to and accepted by the providers.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the reduction order on the ground that it violated the collateral source rule, and the Supreme Court accepted review of the case to resolve the following issue: 

Is the negotiated rate differential – the difference between the full billed rate for medical care and the actual amount paid as negotiated between a medical provider and an insurer – a collateral source benefit under the collateral source rule, which allows a plaintiff to collect that amount as economic damages, or is the plaintiff limited in economic damages to the amount the medical provider accepts as payment?

After providing a detailed discussion of the history of the collateral source rule, as “unequivocally reaffirmed” by the Court’s in the decision Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 2 Cal.3d 1, 6 (1970), and how that rule has been addressed over the past 40 years in case law (mostly involving Medi-Cal benefits) or excepted by statute in limited contexts, the Supreme Court explained that none of the prior cases had “discussed the question, central to the arguments in this case, of whether restricting recovery to amounts actually paid by a plaintiff or on his or her behalf contravenes the collateral source rule.” 

The Court then proceeded to resolve the four issues necessary to answer this question:

First, based on certain California Civil Code sections and the provisions of the Restatement of Torts, and as guided by a prior Court of Appeal decision involving Medi-Cal benefits, Hanif v. Housing Authority, 200 Cal. App. 3d 635 (1988), the Court held that

“a plaintiff may recover as economic damages no more than the reasonable value of the medical services received and is not entitled to recover the reasonable value if his or her actual loss was less.” (Emphasis by Court.)  

This is based on the well-established rule that a plaintiff’s expenses, to be recoverable, must not only be incurred but reasonable, and that this rule “applies when a collateral source, such as the plaintiff’s health insurer, has obtained a discount for its payments on the plaintiff’s behalf.”

Second, the basis for the limitation on recovery as to Medi-Cal recipients, adopted in the Hanif case, similarly applies to plaintiffs like Howell who possess private medical insurance. Since, by the purchase of such insurance, Howell’s prospective liability was limited to the amounts her medical insurer had agreed to pay the providers for the medical services they were to render, Howell could not “meaningfully be said ever to have incurred the full charges” or ever been personally liable for the full charges. 

Third, as to the argument that the tortfeasor (Hamilton in this case) would obtain a windfall “merely because the injured person’s health insurer has negotiated a favorable rate of payment with the person’s medical provider,” the Court disagreed. After addressing the “complexities of contemporary pricing and reimbursement patterns for medical providers,” the Court observed that the “negotiated prices” medical providers accept from health insurers “makes at least as much sense, and arguably more, than” the full prices that are billed by such providers where there is no negotiation between buyer and seller. 

“Accordingly, a tortfeasor who pays only the discounted amount as damages does not generally receive a windfall and is not generally underdeterred from engaging in risky conduct.”

Finally, in response to the contention by Howell that the “negotiated rate differential” is a benefit provided to the insured plaintiff under her policy and should be recoverable under the collateral source rule, the Court disagreed with this assertion as well. 

Since Howell did not incur liability for the full bills generated by the medical providers, due to the fact that her providers had agreed with her insurer on a different price schedule, she could not recoup those full bills as damages for economic loss under the collateral source rule. Moreover, the rule does not apply to the negotiated rate differential since it is not primarily a benefit to the plaintiff but the “primary benefit of discounted rates for medical care goes to the payer of those rates – that is, in largest part, to the insurer.”

As noted above, the Court’s decision was not wholly unanimous, as one Justice dissented. That Justice’s position was that, while Howell should not be able to recoup “the gross amount of her potentially inflated medical bills,” neither should they “be capped at the discounted amount her medical providers agreed to accept as payment in full from her insurer.” Instead, the dissent opted for an intermediate position, claiming this is the majority rule across the country: “Howell should be entitled to recover the reasonable value or market value of such services, as determined by expert testimony at trial.”  

With six Justices signing off on the Court’s opinion, however, the collateral source rule will not require defendants (or their liability insurers) in California to pay any amount greater for medical expenses than the discounted amounts paid by the insured person’s health insurer and accepted by her medical providers.

California Department of Insurance to Implement Outside Actuarial Reviews for All Major Health Insurer Rate Increases

California Department of Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, issued a press release today indicating that the Department has retained an outside actuarial firm to analyze regulatory rate change filings made with the Department by the four major health insurers in the individual market – Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, Health Net, and Blue Shield of California

The purpose of the independent actuarial analysis is to ensure that health insurers, in raising their premium rates, comply with state law mandating that 70 cents of every dollar collected in health insurance premiums are to be spent on medical benefits.

In February 2010, after the Department received Anthem Blue Cross’ proposed rate change filing indicating that it was seeking to increase individual rates by up to 39%, Commissioner Poizner took the unprecedented step of requesting that an outside actuarial firm analyze the proposed rate increase to ensure that Anthem Blue Cross’ actuarial assumptions were justified and that it complied with the 70 cents on the dollar state law mandate. 

The Commissioner indicated at that time in a letter to Anthem’s parent, Wellpoint, Inc., that

[i]f the independent actuary concludes that Anthem’s assumptions are unjustified and that Anthem will pay out less than 70 cents of the premium dollar for benefits, I will take immediate action to stop Anthem from charging the increased rates to California consumers.”

On April 28, 2010, Axene Health Partners, LLC (“Axene”), the actuarial firm retained by the Department to analyze Anthem’s rate change filing, issued a report containing its findings. In short, Axene found that Anthem’s actuarial calculations and methodology were flawed which resulted in inflated total lifetime loss ratios. This, in turn, resulted in a finding by the Department that Anthem had attempted to charge consumers 50% more than state law allows. In response to these findings, Anthem withdrew its rate change filing.

The press release issued today by the Department indicates that, in light of Axene’s findings with respect to Anthem’s rate change filing, the Department will require that, in addition to the actuarial review conducted internally by the Department, the four major health insurers’ rate change filings be scrutinized by an outside actuarial firm to ensure accuracy and compliance with state law.  

Currently, Axene is reviewing rate change filings made by Aetna and Blue Shield, and will no doubt be reviewing Anthem’s anticipated rate change re-filing, as well as any future rate change filings made by Health Net.

 

Los Angeles Jury Finds Health Insurer is Required to Pay for Out-of-State Liver Transplant

With the backdrop of the raging battle over healthcare reform, a Los Angeles jury rendered on Monday a verdict in favor of an insured against Anthem Blue Cross arising out of the health insurer’s refusal to provide coverage for an out-of-state liver transplant. The case, Ephram Nehme v. Wellpoint, Inc.; Blue Cross of California d/b/a/ Anthem Blue Cross, initially filed on August 14, 2008, has been closely followed in the legal and health insurance communities.

As reported in the Los Angeles Times, the jury found, by a vote of 10-2, that Anthem Blue Cross had breached its contract by refusing to pay for the cost of the out-of-state transplant operation, and by a vote of 9-3 that Anthem Blue Cross had acted in bad faith. Anthem Blue Cross stated in the article that its contract provides that transplants must be preformed in California and that it had approved Nehme for a transplant at UCLA Medical Center once his name came up on the UCLA waiting list. The same article stated that the jury awarded Nehme $206,000 for the cost of the operation, and that he would also be able to recoup his legal fees. (Under California law, pursuant to the decision in Brandt v. Superior Court, upon a finding that an insurer has acted in bad faith, the insured is able to seek to recover only those attorney’s fees incurred to obtain the contract benefits, but not the fees incurred to show bad faith.) The jury did not, however, award any punitive damages against Anthem Blue Cross.

The trial court proceedings are not yet concluded, with further post-trial motions to be filed, and it is unknown whether Anthem Blue Cross will appeal the jury’s verdict.

California Court of Appeal Upholds Insurer's Rescission of Health Insurance Policy

In Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company (issued January 19, 2010), the California Court of Appeal found that an insurer properly rescinded an insured’s individual health insurance policy based on medical history misrepresentations contained in the application submitted to the insurer. The court also concluded that the insurer had no statutory duty to physically attach the application to the policy or to conduct further inquiries beyond the application during the underwriting process to ascertain the truthfulness of the insured’s representations before it issued the policy. The Nieto decision is addressed in Barger & Wolen’s Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law blog.