California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 29 — Health care coverage.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene Act) , provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires that every health care service plan contract or group health insurance policy that provides for termination of coverage of a dependent child upon attainment of the limiting age for dependent children shall also provide that attainment of the limiting age shall not terminate the coverage of a child under certain conditions. This bill would prohibit, with a specified exception, the limiting age for dependent children covered by these health care service plan contracts and group health insurance policies from being less than 27 years of age. The bill would also provide that no employer is required to pay the cost of coverage for dependents who are at least 23 years of age, but less than 27 years of age. The bill instead would authorize subscribers and insureds to elect to provide coverage to those dependents by contributing the premium for that coverage. Because this bill would specify additional requirements under the Knox-Keene Act, the willful violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission.

  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  5. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 13. Noes 5.) (April 14).

  6. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  7. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  8. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.

  9. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  10. From printer. May be heard in committee January 1.

  11. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Price · Primary
  • Swanson · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Price

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Swanson

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Passed 17 Yea · 6 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 15501
Republican 1100
Democratic 1000
Total 17601
% of votes cast 71%25%0%4%
How each member voted (24)
Member Party Vote
Carter — Yea
Hall — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Salas — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Fletcher — Nay
Gaines — Nay
Audra — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Block — Yea
Adams — Nay
Hill — Yea
Nava — Yea
Conway — Nay
Emmerson — Not Voting
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

healthcare health-insurance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 29 do?
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene Act) , provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires that every health care service plan contract or group health insurance policy that provides for termination of coverage of a dependent child upon attainment of the limiting age for dependent children shall also provide that attainment of the limiting age shall not terminate the coverage of a child under certain conditions. This bill would prohibit, with a specified exception, the limiting age for dependent children covered by these health care service plan contracts and group health insurance policies from being less than 27 years of age. The bill would also provide that no employer is required to pay the cost of coverage for dependents who are at least 23 years of age, but less than 27 years of age. The bill instead would authorize subscribers and insureds to elect to provide coverage to those dependents by contributing the premium for that coverage. Because this bill would specify additional requirements under the Knox-Keene Act, the willful violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 29?
AB 29 is sponsored by Price and Swanson.
What is the current status of AB 29?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 29?
Track AB 29 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 29

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 29

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →