Passage.
Ayes, 6 - Senators
Stepp, Harsdorf, Brown, Plale, Lassa and Coggs.
Noes, 0 - None.
Relating to: changes to the impact fee law and imposing certain requirements on other fees imposed by political subdivisions.
Passage.
Ayes, 4 - Senators
Stepp, Harsdorf, Brown and Plale.
Noes, 2 - Senators
Lassa and Coggs.
Senate Bill 685
Relating to: use of the proceeds from the sale of real property located in the city of Milwaukee and used for school purposes.
Adoption of Senate Amendment 1.
Ayes, 6 - Senators
Stepp, Harsdorf, Brown, Plale, Lassa and Coggs.
Noes, 0 - None.
Passage as amended.
Ayes, 6 - Senators
Stepp, Harsdorf, Brown, Plale, Lassa and Coggs.
Noes, 0 - None.
Cathy Stepp
Chairperson
The committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy reports and recommends:
Assembly Bill 887
Relating to: electing not to provide an address in a petition in a family action in a case in which abuse is alleged.
Introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 1.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
Zien, Roessler, Grothman, Taylor and Risser.
Noes, 0 - None.
Concurrence as amended.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
Zien, Roessler, Grothman, Taylor and Risser.
Noes, 0 - None.
David Zien
Chairperson
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Secretary of State
To the Honorable, the Senate:
Bill Number Act Number
Publication Date
Senate Bill 158 Act
291
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 477 Act
292
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 429 Act
297
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 404 Act
298
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 536 Act
300
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 547 Act
301
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 350 Act
303
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 369 Act
304
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 380 Act
314
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 457 Act
315
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 527 Act
316
April 20
, 2006
Senate Bill 95 Act
318
April 20
, 2006
Sincerely,
DOUGLAS LA FOLLETTE
Secretary of State
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
April 14, 2006
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am vetoing Senate Bill 420. The bill changes the definition of a group health benefit plan in such a way that it will harm consumers. Under current law, a group health benefit plan is a group plan that is sold to two or more employees of an employer, or an individual policy sold to three or more employees of an employer. In both cases, numerous consumer protections apply. This bill changes the definition of a group health benefit plan by increasing, from three to nine, the number of individual health benefit plans that constitutes a group health benefit plan. This bill also changes the definition of "small employer insurer" so that an insurer that sells nine or more individual health benefit plans (rather than three or more as under current law) to a small employer is a small employer insurer.
By raising the threshold for group coverage under the individual market regulations until at least 9 employees sign up for coverage, the bill reduces consumer protections for employees of small employers. The bill also increases costs and limits insurance options for older and less healthy employees. The bill acknowledges this likely loss in coverage by requiring the Office of Commissioner of Insurance to measure the impact the bill has on increasing the number of Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan (HIRSP) applicants and Medical Assistance recipients, who apply because they work for small employers who dropped coverage in favor of individual list billing.
Under this bill, many employees could be removed from small employer health insurance protections if employers decide to cease group coverage and facilitate the purchase of individual policies through employee payroll deductions. Consequently, these employees would no longer be covered by the protections currently available to small insurance plan participants. These protections include:
• Continuation and conversion rights, which permit persons who leave the group to acquire group health insurance for up to 18 months. While the individual may be asked to pay the premiums for a continuation policy, coverage under these policies is generally less expensive and offer better benefits than individual coverage. Once the conversion period is ended, the individual must then be offered a conversion policy, which is individual coverage.
• Portability, which permits an individual with prior group coverage to move to their next group, or in some cases, to the state high-risk pool without serving a new pre-existing condition waiting period. Persons who do not exercise their portability rights within 63 days of losing group coverage lose this right.
• Guarantee issue for small group coverage, meaning that the insurer must accept all members of a group without excluding pre-existing health conditions. In the individual market, each policy is underwritten and insurers are permitted to both refuse coverage to those individuals who do not meet the insurer's underwriting standards and exclude coverage for pre-existing health conditions.
• Mandated benefits required for group plans. For example, required group plans benefits including for mental health and AODA treatment are not required benefits under individual policies.
• Limits on the rates that can be charged to employers with small group health insurance policies that do not apply in the individual market.
S774
When employees are removed from group coverage they would then be forced to look at individual plans, including the state HIRSP program, for their insurance needs.
Individual plans are often less affordable than group coverage and many may be unable to afford these individual plans. The likely result would be an increase in the number of uninsured individuals in the state.
While the bill was advertised as a way to decrease costs and improve access, it probably would have the opposite effect and result in higher costs and fewer insured individuals and families. Because I want to ensure that access to coverage is as broad as possible and that the consumer protections of small group insurance laws are available to as many people as possible, I am vetoing this bill.
Sincerely,
JIM DOYLE
Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
April 14, 2006
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am vetoing SB 447. This bill substantially heightens the standard for when punitive damages may be awarded. Specifically, the bill provides that punitive damages may only be awarded when a defendant either acted with the "intent to cause injury to a particular person or persons" or where the defendant knew that his or her conduct "was practically certain to result in injury to one or more persons."
Punitive damages should be rarely granted; however, this bill would make it virtually impossible to ever obtain such damages. Appropriately applied, punitive damages can lead to important safety changes. From asbestos products to highly flammable children's pajamas, punitive damages have protected the public by prompting unsafe products to be taken off the market. Manufacturers of these products were often aware of the hazard, but failed to disclose it to the public. Under this bill, many of these reasonable punitive damages awards would have been unavailable, putting Wisconsin citizens at risk.
Moreover, current law already provides a check to excessive punitive damage awards. If a jury returns a damage amount that is unreasonable, a defendant may challenge the validity of the amount and a judge may reduce it appropriately. In fact, the vast majority of punitive damage awards are not the $100 million payout heard about in the news. The U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics recently found that the median punitive damage award to plaintiffs determined by a jury was $50,000, while the median award determined by a bench trial was $46,000.
It is important to balance the rights of citizens against the protections for businesses. However, this bill goes too far to protect businesses at the expense of the citizens of Wisconsin. Their rights also need to be protected, and that is why I am vetoing this bill.
Sincerely,
JIM DOYLE
Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
April 14, 2006
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am vetoing Senate Bill 501, relating to reimbursement of certain attorney's fees and other litigation costs.
I am vetoing SB 501 because it removes the discretion of judges when dealing with frivolous claims and adds confusion to the existing rules. Current law already authorizes courts to impose sanctions, including the award of expenses and attorney fees, against litigants who bring frivolous lawsuits. The existing rules, passed just last year, are the product of a two-year long, Wisconsin Supreme Court rule-making process and are structured to provide Wisconsin courts with a variety of tools to best deal with and deter frivolous filings. These rules are supported by those representing both sides of the table – both plaintiff and business interests – and I believe they give judges what is necessary to punish and help reduce the filing of frivolous lawsuits in Wisconsin.
I agree that frivolous lawsuits are a concern, but we shouldn't be passing laws that strip elected judges of the tools that both the plaintiff and defense bar agree judges need, and force their hand to treat every frivolous claim exactly the same. SB 501 would do just that, and I cannot sign it into law.
Sincerely,
JIM DOYLE
Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
April 14, 2006
The Honorable, The Senate:
