California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 641 — Mexican prepaid health plans.

Last action — Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 (the act) , provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, under the direction of the Director of the Department of the Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law requires a prepaid health plan to apply for licensure as a health care service plan if the prepaid health plan operating lawfully under the laws of Mexico elects to operate a health care service plan in this state. Existing law requires the application for licensure to demonstrate compliance with specified requirements, including that the prepaid health plan offers and sells in this state only employer-sponsored group plan contracts exclusively for the benefit of Mexican nationals legally employed in the County of San Diego or the County of Imperial, and for the benefit of their dependents regardless of nationality, that pay for, reimburse the cost of, or arrange for the provision or delivery of health care services that are to be provided or delivered wholly in Mexico, except as specified. Existing law also requires the plan to demonstrate that the plan maintains a specified tangible net equity or is able to demonstrate a reasonable acceptable alternative reimbursement arrangement. Existing law also authorizes the director to prescribe rules and regulations to provide safeguards with respect to the financial responsibility of health care service plans, generally. This bill would instead require that application for licensure to demonstrate that the plan offers and sells in this state only employer-sponsored group plan contracts exclusively for the benefit of persons, rather than Mexican nationals, legally employed in the County of San Diego or the County of Imperial. The bill would eliminate the tangible net equity requirement specified for these plans and would instead require these plans to maintain a tangible net equity as required by the director pursuant to the authority granted to the director with respect to health care service plans, generally. The bill would, for policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2019, authorize the director to exempt, for not more than 5 years, a prepaid health plan from requirements of the act, and would authorize exemptions granted prior to January 1, 2019, to remain in effect until January 1, 2021, as specified. The bill would require the director to post the formal decision regarding the exemption on the department's Internet Web site. The bill would also require, if a prepaid health plan that is subject to these provisions is issued or sold to a group subscriber, the group subscriber to offer to enrollees and dependents coverage that is fully consistent with the provisions of the act or federal law, as specified. The bill would also make technical changes. Because a violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of San Diego and Imperial. 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. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  2. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (June 26).

  3. From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on HEALTH. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  4. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.

  5. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  6. July 11 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.

  7. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  8. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  9. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 1358.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  10. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  12. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1188.) (May 25).

  13. Set for hearing May 25.

  14. May 15 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  15. Set for hearing May 15.

  16. May 8 hearing postponed by committee.

  17. Set for hearing May 8.

  18. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  19. Withdrawn from committee.

  20. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  21. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 748.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  22. Set for hearing April 18.

  23. Re-referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.

  24. Withdrawn from committee.

  25. April 3 hearing postponed by committee.

  26. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.

  27. Set for hearing April 3.

  28. March 27 hearing postponed by committee.

  29. Set for hearing March 27.

  30. Referred to Coms. on B., P. & E.D., PUB. S., and JUD.

  31. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.

  32. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Hueso · Cosponsor
  • Lara · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Lara

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Hueso

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 as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 15 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11000
Democratic 3000
Republican 1000
Total 15000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Bigelow — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Burke — Yea
Mayes — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Wood — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Be re-referred to the Committee on [Health]

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 6002
Democratic 2000
Total 9002
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Friedman — Not Voting
Salas — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cunningham — Not Voting
Mayes — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Special Consent Calendar # SB641

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 35000
Democratic 5000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Bates — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Allen — Yea
Cannella — Yea
De León — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Beall — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Newman — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Roth — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

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 SB 641 do?
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (the act) , provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, under the direction of the Director of the Department of the Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law requires a prepaid health plan to apply for licensure as a health care service plan if the prepaid health plan operating lawfully under the laws of Mexico elects to operate a health care service plan in this state. Existing law requires the application for licensure to demonstrate compliance with specified requirements, including that the prepaid health plan offers and sells in this state only employer-sponsored group plan contracts exclusively for the benefit of Mexican nationals legally employed in the County of San Diego or the County of Imperial, and for the benefit of their dependents regardless of nationality, that pay for, reimburse the cost of, or arrange for the provision or delivery of health care services that are to be provided or delivered wholly in Mexico, except as specified. Existing law also requires the plan to demonstrate that the plan maintains a specified tangible net equity or is able to demonstrate a reasonable acceptable alternative reimbursement arrangement. Existing law also authorizes the director to prescribe rules and regulations to provide safeguards with respect to the financial responsibility of health care service plans, generally. This bill would instead require that application for licensure to demonstrate that the plan offers and sells in this state only employer-sponsored group plan contracts exclusively for the benefit of persons, rather than Mexican nationals, legally employed in the County of San Diego or the County of Imperial. The bill would eliminate the tangible net equity requirement specified for these plans and would instead require these plans to maintain a tangible net equity as required by the director pursuant to the authority granted to the director with respect to health care service plans, generally. The bill would, for policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2019, authorize the director to exempt, for not more than 5 years, a prepaid health plan from requirements of the act, and would authorize exemptions granted prior to January 1, 2019, to remain in effect until January 1, 2021, as specified. The bill would require the director to post the formal decision regarding the exemption on the department's Internet Web site. The bill would also require, if a prepaid health plan that is subject to these provisions is issued or sold to a group subscriber, the group subscriber to offer to enrollees and dependents coverage that is fully consistent with the provisions of the act or federal law, as specified. The bill would also make technical changes. Because a violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of San Diego and Imperial. 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 SB 641?
SB 641 is sponsored by Hueso and Lara.
What is the current status of SB 641?
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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 SB 641?
Track SB 641 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 641

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 SB 641

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →