Calif. Addresses Maternity Benefits; N.J. Gov. Vetoes Family Planning Bill; Va. Panel Rejects Antiabortion Measures

February 7, 2011 — California state Sen. Noreen Evans (D) -- chair of the Legislative Women's Caucus -- last week introduced a bill (SB 155) that would require health plans in the individual health insurance market to provide comprehensive maternity coverage, the Eureka Times-Standard reports.

State law already requires HMOs and group insurance plans to provide coverage for maternity services, but individual plans are not required to do so. In California, the percentage of individual plans offering maternity coverage fell from 82% in 2004 to 19% in 2009, according to a statement from Evans' office. Evans' office said the lack of individual coverage for maternity services increases costs for pregnant women and those who could become pregnant. Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones and the American Congress of Obstetricians & Gynecologists have expressed support for the bill (Eureka Times-Standard, 2/4).

The insurance industry previously has opposed legislation similar to Evans' bill. The industry contends that mandating coverage for specific services limits consumer choice and drives up premiums (Weintraub, HealthyCal, 2/2). Although the state Legislature passed a maternity coverage bill (AB 1825) last year, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoed the measure (Eureka Times-Standard, 2/4).

New Jersey Gov. Nixes Expanding Medicaid Coverage of Family Planning Services

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Thursday vetoed a bill (A 3273) that would have directed the state to apply to the federal government for permission to provide Medicaid family planning services to individuals with incomes too high to normally qualify for the program, New Jersey Newsroom reports (Hester, New Jersey Newsroom, 2/3). The bill, introduced by Assembly member Linda Stender (D) and four other Democrats, was meant to help replace some of the $7.5 million Christie cut last year from family planning services during last year's budget crisis, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports (Rao, Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/4).

The federal reform law (PL 111-148) aims to make it easier and faster for states to expand Medicaid coverage for family planning services and contraceptives. States wishing to expand eligibility for Medicaid family planning services can seek federal approval through a more efficient state Medicaid plan amendment process. Once CMS approves a state plan amendment, the changes become part of the state's Medicaid program and states do not have to reapply to continue offering expanded access to Medicaid family planning services. CMS will continue to reimburse states at a 90% matching rate for approved family planning services (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 1/25).

Christie said that signing the legislation would increase the nearly $1.1 billion budget shortfall the state's Medicaid program faces in the next fiscal year (Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/4). "It would be financially irresponsible to increase Medicaid costs and expand Medicaid eligibility in the face of such a serious deficit in the Medicaid program and the ongoing budgetary challenges faced by the state generally," Christie said. Stender responded that Christie has "said that this issue is purely about money we don't have, but all this bill would have done is leveraged the money already being spent in our Medicaid budget to obtain additional federal dollars to expand access to health care services for low-income women" (New Jersey Newsroom, 2/3).

Va. Senate Committee Defeats Antiabortion Bills

The Democrat-controlled Virginia Senate Education and Health Committee on Thursday tabled five antiabortion bills, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports. The bills would have prohibited health insurance providers from offering coverage for abortion under the federal health reform law (SB 1202), allowed civil lawsuits to be brought on behalf of fetuses (SB 1207), made it a criminal act to coerce a pregnant woman to have an abortion (SB 1217), given fetuses human rights equal to state residents (SB 1378), and required women seeking abortion to first have an ultrasound and be given a chance to view the results (SB 1435).

Proponents of the bills said they would protect fetuses, allow women to make better-informed decisions about abortion and ensure that women's decision making about abortion was not influenced by others. Bill opponents said the legislation would weaken women's ability to choose, insert government into the doctor-patient relationship and provide a foundation for the state to make abortion illegal (Nolan, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 2/4).