CALIFORNIA: MATERNITY-STAY BILL DERAILED

      After being "fierce[ly]" opposed by the health insurance
 industry, a mandatory maternity-stay bill failed in a "key"
 California legislative committee Wednesday, LOS ANGLES TIMES
 reports.  The bill would have required "HMOs, disability insurers
 and some nonprofit hospitals to provide" at least a 48-hour
 hospital stay following uncomplicated deliveries and a 96-hour
 stay following a C-section.  The bill had already passed the
 state Senate, but the state Assembly Appropriations Committee
 "voted not to forward it to the full Assembly."  State Rep. Liz
 Figueroa (D), who sponsored the bill, said, "As for as I'm
 concerned, it's dead."
      REAX:  Figueroa said the bill's demise was a sign of HMOs'
 influence in the California Legislature.  "Some of the strongest
 lobbyists in this state are HMOs," she said.  The bill had the 
 support of the California Medical Association, the American
 College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Traditional
 Values Coalition.
      THE HMO SIDE:  The California Association of HMOs "argued"
 that "earlier maternity discharges pose no greater risk to
 mothers and babies than longer hospital stays. ... It is
 inappropriate for government to mandate medical decisions that
 are better left to doctors."  Maureen O'Hara, legislative affairs
 director for the HMO trade group, questioned whether data exists
 showing that "California women that have babies are dying in
 greater numbers or that major problems are occurring that weren't
 occurring before" because of shorter maternity stays?  She also
 said that the medical groups contracted by the HMOs determine the
 length of maternity stays, not the insurers.  A legislative
 analysis reported that the bill "could have cost the state Medi-
 Cal program as much as $50 million in 1997 by increasing the
 average hospital stay for Medi-Cal recipients from 1.6 days to 2
 days."  The California Chamber of Commerce, the California
 Manufacturers Association and Gov. Pete Wilson's (R) Department
 of Finance also opposed the bill (Olmos, 8/8).