Financial impact of California's new law to increase HIV screening by mandating insurance coverage.

To increase HIV testing, in 2008 California's governor signed the first piece of legislation in the USA to require private health plans to cover the cost of HIV testing regardless of whether testing is related to a primary diagnosis. This study assesses the impacts of the bill on coverage, testing rate, and cost for 22,190,000 Californians. All targeted individuals had some form of coverage for HIV testing before the mandate. If minimum expansion of coverage occurs, overall expenditures on HIV testing are projected to increase by US$554,000 in the year following the adoption of the law. If testing broadens to comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) testing guidelines, annual expenditures are projected to increase by US$10,151,000. This policy change could serve as a step toward making HIV testing a routine screening test. However, the impact of this mandate largely depends on people's awareness and willingness to adopt the CDC guidelines.

The California Cost and Coverage Model: analyses of the financial impacts of benefit mandates for the California legislature.

OBJECTIVE: To produce cost estimates of proposed health insurance benefit mandates for the California legislature. DATA SOURCES: The 2001 California Health Interview Survey, 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Education Trust California Employer Health Benefits Survey, Milliman Health Cost Guidelines, and ad hoc surveys of large health plans were used. STUDY DESIGN: We developed an actuarial model to estimate short-term (1 year) changes in utilization and total health care expenditures, including insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures, if insurance mandates were enacted. This model includes baseline estimates of current coverage and total current expenditures for each proposed mandate. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Analysis of seven legislative proposals indicated 1-year increases in total health care expenditures among the insured population in California ranging from 0.006 to 0.200 percent. Even when proposed mandates were expected to reach a large target group, either utilization or cost was sufficiently low to keep total cost increases minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Our ability to develop a California-specific model to estimate the impacts of proposed mandates in a timely fashion provided California legislators during the 2004 legislative session with more-detailed coverage and cost information than is generally available to legislative bodies.