California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 999 — Long-term care insurance.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 627, Statutes of 2012.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2011. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 72% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 2 sponsors

    1 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 6 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law provides for the regulation of insurers by the Department of Insurance, including insurers issuing policies of long-term care insurance. Existing law regulates the marketing or solicitation of long-term care insurance policies and, in that regard, requires specified disclosures to prospective applicants or enrollees. Existing law requires the Insurance Commissioner to annually prepare a consumer rate guide for long-term care insurance and to include specified information. This bill would require an insurer of long-term care insurance to clearly post on its Internet Web site and provide written notice at the time of solicitation that a specimen individual policy form or group master policy and certificate form for each policy form offered by the insurer is available upon request and to provide that form within 15 calendar days upon request. This bill would require the annual consumer rate guide to include a specimen outline of coverage for each product currently marketed by each insurer listed in the rate guide. Existing law requires the premium rate schedules for all individual and group long-term care insurance policies issued in this state to be filed with, and receive the prior approval of, the Insurance Commissioner before the policy may be offered, sold, issued, or delivered to a resident of this state. Existing law requires an insurer of long-term care insurance to submit to the Insurance Commissioner for approval all proposed premium rate schedule increases and to include specified information with the rate application, including, but not limited to, certification by an actuary as to specified matters. Approval of all premium rate schedule increases is subject to specified criteria. This bill would provide that if the premiums in any rate revision filing calculated pursuant to those criteria produce a lifetime expected loss ratio that is less than the highest lifetime expected loss ratio for the policy form in the initial filing or for requested premium rates in any filing made after January 1, 2013, the insurer would be required to reduce the premiums in that filing such that the current lifetime expected loss ratio is equal to or greater than the highest filed loss ratio, as specified. The bill would set forth criteria for calculating the margin in the determination of a lifetime expected loss ratio. Existing law prohibits an approval for an increase in the premium schedule from being granted unless the actuary performing the review for the Insurance Commissioner certifies that if the requested premium rate schedule increase is implemented and the underlying assumptions, which reflect moderately adverse conditions, are realized, no further premium rate schedule increases are anticipated. This bill would eliminate those provisions and, instead, authorize an insurer to request a premium rate schedule increase that is lower than the rate increase necessary to provide the required certification or a series of premium rate schedule increases with a present value of not more than the rate increase necessary to provide that certification. The bill would authorize the Insurance Commissioner to approve this request if, in his or her opinion, accepting the lower premium rate schedule increase or increases is in the best interest of California policyholders, and other conditions are satisfied, as specified. For long-term care insurance policies, the bill would also prohibit an insurer from justifying a rate increase prior to approval by the Insurance Commissioner based upon asset investment yield rate changes, except as specified, and would require all of the experience on all similar long-term care policy forms issued by an insurer and its affiliates and retained within the affiliated group to be pooled together and used as the basis for determining whether an increase is reasonable or shall be approved under specified provisions. The bill would require similar long-term care policy forms to be classified into benefit classifications of nursing facility and residential care facility only, home care only, or comprehensive long-term care benefits.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 627, Statutes of 2012.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:40 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 52. Noes 27. Page 6626.).

  5. Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 6605.)

  6. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 31 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 21. Noes 12. Page 4958.).

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 3.) (June 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  14. In committee: Set, first hearing. Further hearing to be set.

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

  16. Referred to Com. on INS.

  17. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  18. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 42. Noes 33. Page 1755.)

  19. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  20. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 6.) (May 27).

  21. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  22. Read second time and amended.

  23. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 5.) (May 4).

  24. Re-referred to Com. on INS.

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

  26. Referred to Com. on INS.

  27. From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

  28. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Skinner · Cosponsor
  • Yamada · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 7 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Yamada

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Skinner

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

3rd Reading AB999 Yamada By Alquist

Passed 21 Yea · 12 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 191107
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 211207
% of votes cast 53%30%0%18%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Price — Yea
Wright — Yea
Wyland — Not Voting
Evans — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Rubio — Yea
Hancock — Not Voting
Cannella — Nay
Runner — Not Voting
Harman — Not Voting
Huff — Nay
Anderson — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Dutton — Nay
Pavley — Not Voting
Vargas — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Blakeslee — Nay
Hernandez — Yea
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Not Voting
Liu — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Not Voting
Walters — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Correa — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
La Malfa — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

AB 999 YAMADA Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 52 Yea · 27 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 512501
Democratic 1000
Republican 0200
Total 522701
% of votes cast 65%34%0%1%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gorell — Nay
Halderman — Nay
Butler — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Carter — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Fong — Yea
Allen — Yea
Hill — Yea
Williams — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Campos — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Conway — Nay
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Hueso — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Cook — Nay
Davis — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Huffman — Yea
Jeffries — Nay
Lara — Yea
Logue — Nay
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Norby — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Pan — Yea
Silva — Nay
Smyth — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Valadao — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Huber — Yea
Knight — Nay
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Perea — Not Voting
Skinner — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Eng — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

AB 999 YAMADA Assembly Third Reading

Passed 42 Yea · 33 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 423005
Republican 0200
Democratic 0100
Total 423305
% of votes cast 53%41%0%6%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Halderman — Nay
Hall — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Butler — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Gordon — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Fong — Yea
Allen — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Campos — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Huber — Nay
Hueso — Yea
Carter — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Lara — Yea
Logue — Nay
Cedillo — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Nay
Cook — Nay
Davis — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Perea — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Williams — Yea
Fletcher — Nay
Galgiani — Not Voting
Gorell — Not Voting
Jeffries — Nay
Knight — Nay
Miller — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Achadjian — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Hill — Nay
Huffman — Yea
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Pan — Not Voting
Silva — Nay
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Nay
Valadao — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Eng — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Fuentes — Not Voting
Furutani — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gatto — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 6 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10600
Democratic 1000
Total 11600
% of votes cast 65%35%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Hill — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Campos — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Davis — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Lara — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Fuentes — Yea
Gatto — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

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

Passed 7 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7300
Republican 0100
Democratic 0100
Total 7500
% of votes cast 58%42%0%0%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Carter — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Miller — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Nay
Grove, Shannon 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 999 do?
Existing law provides for the regulation of insurers by the Department of Insurance, including insurers issuing policies of long-term care insurance. Existing law regulates the marketing or solicitation of long-term care insurance policies and, in that regard, requires specified disclosures to prospective applicants or enrollees. Existing law requires the Insurance Commissioner to annually prepare a consumer rate guide for long-term care insurance and to include specified information. This bill would require an insurer of long-term care insurance to clearly post on its Internet Web site and provide written notice at the time of solicitation that a specimen individual policy form or group master policy and certificate form for each policy form offered by the insurer is available upon request and to provide that form within 15 calendar days upon request. This bill would require the annual consumer rate guide to include a specimen outline of coverage for each product currently marketed by each insurer listed in the rate guide. Existing law requires the premium rate schedules for all individual and group long-term care insurance policies issued in this state to be filed with, and receive the prior approval of, the Insurance Commissioner before the policy may be offered, sold, issued, or delivered to a resident of this state. Existing law requires an insurer of long-term care insurance to submit to the Insurance Commissioner for approval all proposed premium rate schedule increases and to include specified information with the rate application, including, but not limited to, certification by an actuary as to specified matters. Approval of all premium rate schedule increases is subject to specified criteria. This bill would provide that if the premiums in any rate revision filing calculated pursuant to those criteria produce a lifetime expected loss ratio that is less than the highest lifetime expected loss ratio for the policy form in the initial filing or for requested premium rates in any filing made after January 1, 2013, the insurer would be required to reduce the premiums in that filing such that the current lifetime expected loss ratio is equal to or greater than the highest filed loss ratio, as specified. The bill would set forth criteria for calculating the margin in the determination of a lifetime expected loss ratio. Existing law prohibits an approval for an increase in the premium schedule from being granted unless the actuary performing the review for the Insurance Commissioner certifies that if the requested premium rate schedule increase is implemented and the underlying assumptions, which reflect moderately adverse conditions, are realized, no further premium rate schedule increases are anticipated. This bill would eliminate those provisions and, instead, authorize an insurer to request a premium rate schedule increase that is lower than the rate increase necessary to provide the required certification or a series of premium rate schedule increases with a present value of not more than the rate increase necessary to provide that certification. The bill would authorize the Insurance Commissioner to approve this request if, in his or her opinion, accepting the lower premium rate schedule increase or increases is in the best interest of California policyholders, and other conditions are satisfied, as specified. For long-term care insurance policies, the bill would also prohibit an insurer from justifying a rate increase prior to approval by the Insurance Commissioner based upon asset investment yield rate changes, except as specified, and would require all of the experience on all similar long-term care policy forms issued by an insurer and its affiliates and retained within the affiliated group to be pooled together and used as the basis for determining whether an increase is reasonable or shall be approved under specified provisions. The bill would require similar long-term care policy forms to be classified into benefit classifications of nursing facility and residential care facility only, home care only, or comprehensive long-term care benefits.
Who sponsors AB 999?
AB 999 is sponsored by Skinner and Yamada.
What is the current status of AB 999?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2011. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 999?
Track AB 999 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 999

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 999

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →