New Hampshire’s New Divorce Health Access Law
NH Women’s Lobby The New Hampshire Women’s Lobby (NHWL) is a grassroots, nonpartisan, statewide membership organization whose mission is to promote public policy to improve the economic and social well-being of New Hampshire women and their families. We have served NH for 27 years. Our Core Issues are: Economic Autonomy Family Law Women’s Health Civil Rights and Freedom From Discrimination
What’s good for the women of NH is good for the state of NH
NH’s Divorce Health Access Law, Senate Bill 197, Effective January, 2008
In 2007, the New Hampshire Women’s Lobby took a leadership role in drafting and supporting the passage of legislation that allows an individual to remain on the former spouse’s employer-provided group health insurance plan for three years after divorce. Unlike COBRA and state continuation coverage, health coverage pursuant to this legislation will be on the pre-divorce plan (i.e., family membership) and not subject to an additional premium. The New Hampshire Women’s Lobby championed the new law because loss of health insurance upon divorce is widespread, especially for women. The NH Women’s Lobby’s core issues include women’s health as well as economic security for working families. COBRA, state continuation coverage and individual policies are not affordable for many. Allowing time-limited, continued coverage of a former spouse on the pre-divorce plan provides a security bridge during a time of major personal and financial upheaval. With the help of a grassroots coalition of supporters convened by the NH Women’s Lobby and the Public Policy Institute, support was bipartisan throughout much of the legislative process and repeal attempts on the new law were soundly
nh women's lobby
Annie Farnsworth, Ph.D. Executive Director po box 1072 concord, nh 03302 603.224.9105 office anniefarnsworth@tds.net www.nhwomenslobby.org
Fourteen percent (14%) of adults in New Hampshire who were uninsured at some point in their adult lives lost their insurance as a result of divorce.
defeated in the 2008 legislative session. Therefore, absent other order in the final decree of divorce, insurance carriers now must continue to provide coverage to the former spouse under the group health insurance plan, without assessing an additional premium, “as if [the divorce] decree had not been issued.” The law thereby provides a mechanism for
ensuring that insurance carriers cannot deny a former spouse access to coverage following divorce, or implement a prohibitive increase in premium cost for the former spouse.
New Hampshire’s law was modeled after a longstanding Massachusetts’ law, M.G.L. c. 175, § 110I, which has protected access to affordable health coverage for many former spouses. Massachusetts judges generally award eligibility when one party lacks access to group health insurance but otherwise exercise their traditional fact-based discretion to make equitable decisions as to payment for health care costs. The New Hampshire law and the Massachusetts law similarly provide that a former spouse’s eligibility shall not be required if the divorce decree so provides. (Compare NH RSA 415:18 VII-b(a) with Mass. Gen. Laws c. 175, § 110I (a).) The New Hampshire law does not disturb the authority of the Family Court to make equitable orders regarding health insurance coverage and the allocation of costs between the parties. To the contrary, the statute expressly vests the court with
The New Hampshire law does not disturb the authority of the Family Court to make equitable orders regarding health insurance coverage and the allocation of costs between the parties.
authority to determine that a former spouse shall not be eligible for coverage under the member spouse’s group health insurance plan. If the Family Court determines that coverage should be
maintained under RSA 415:18, VII-b, which is anticipated in cases where the former spouse lacks access to other affordable, comparable coverage, nothing in the statute prevents the court from issuing orders equitably allocating any non-employer portion of the premium cost, tax liability or other health care costs between the divorcing parties. The court has both the authority to determine that a former spouse should not be eligible to maintain coverage under RSA 415:18, VII-b, and to allocate equitably any costs not borne by the employer between the parties if coverage is maintained for the benefit of the former spouse. Of course, like other decisions in the divorce context, such determinations are to be made in the reasoned discretion of the court, upon careful examination of the equities of each case. See In the Matter of Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 40 (2002). Many thanks to Attorney Clare McGorrian and to Attorney Tom Bunnell who participated in the drafting of the NH Divorce Health Access Law (SB197) and to Clare McGorrian and to Tracy Cote for their assistance in the drafting of this overview of the law.
Clare D. McGorrian, Attorney Health Law Counsel and Consulting 22 Putnam Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 617-871-2139 617-871-2141 (Fax) info@cdmhealthcounsel.com www.cdmhealthcounsel.com
Tracey Goyette Cote Robert Stein & Associates, PLLC One Barberry Lane, PO Box 2159 Concord, NH 03302-2159 (603) 228-1109 (603) 228-5326 (fax)
Thomas G. Bunnell, Esq., Director Institute for Health, Law & Ethics Franklin Pierce Law Center 2 White Street Concord, NH 03301 603-513-5180 (tel) 603-491-1924 (cell) 603-225-4016 (fax) tbunnell@piercelaw.edu
We express our sincere gratitude to the many individuals, organizations and foundations that have worked together to support the Divorce Health Access project which was instrumental in educating the public about the issues facing divorcing families in NH. Special thanks to Judy Meredith and Deb Halliday of The Public Policy Institute www.realclout.org as well as to The Endowment for Health www.endowmentforhealth.org and to the WK Kellogg Foundation.