A few months ago, Courtney blogged about news that health-insurance providers are charging women more for the same coverage. (No, this isn't about pregnancy care -- that costs women extra.) Now, the city of San Francisco is bringing a lawsuit against the board that regulates California insurers, to get them to stop the discriminatory practice.
This is especially relevant now, when so many employers are making lay-offs and cutting benefits, because the price difference mainly affects individuals purchasing health insurance. Says SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera,
"A lot of times, women are priced out of private health coverage because of the discriminatory practices by insurance companies," he said. "This means women have to rely on public hospitals and clinics, and over the last few years we've seen an influx of women who can't afford insurance come into San Francisco General Hospital."As the economic downtown worsens and the costs of healthcare rise, Herrera said, the numbers of those who can't afford healthcare will grow.
"Our state is really behind the curve on this one," he said. "When women can't afford healthcare because they're priced out of it, they're not the only ones who pay for it. These women have to turn to the public health system, a system that is already strained as it is, and every taxpayer ends up paying for it."
For more discussion, see the comments on Courtney's previous post.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Lawsuit seeks to end health insurance discrimination.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11671
Discriminatory or not, as a male, I can't find myself feeling too sympathetic about this.
Men are charged more for motor vehicle insurance, based solely on our gender.
So, when we've spent our entire driving lives with the knowledge that we will pay more for our car insurance because we're male, it's just really hard for me to hear claims of "unfair" when it comes to women paying more for health insurance.
Uh, dude, no one said THAT was fair either. I don't think that's right and I'm female.
Why does discrimination against you mean that you don't have sympathy for discrimination against others? At the very least, not everyone has a car but everyone needs healthcare.
But no one said they supported discriminatory male insurance prices.
Why not be empathetic? We're being discriminated against in different ways. Doesn't mean we can't support each other 'across the aisle'.
Discrimination? I think here we have a misuse of this word. It is business. No evil patriarchy. Next time people who consume more food will claim that they are discriminated and require lesser food prices for them?
oswid, the point San Francisco is making is that for identical coverage , IE not including birth control, prenatal or delivery expenses, women are charged more, when there is no statistically explainable reason for the higher costs. The typically attributed reasons of "teh womenz have teh babeezz" and thus making the cost of a woman's health insurance greater than a man are not part of her insurance package. Unless she buys a really expensive rider, which usually has a 10 to 18 month waiting period.
** Yes, women see physicians more frequently in general, for annual checkups, but those are often not covered under individual insurance plans, which is the target here. State and local government cannot supersede federal ERISA protections for large employee group insurance.
> when there is no statistically explainable reason for the higher costs
Really? In UK insurance companies successfully managed to show statistics which confirmed that they need to charge women more in health insurance (and men more in other fields).
The idea is that when the prenatal or delivery are excluded from coverage women STILL consume more health care. And no it is not about annual checkups. In Russia this difference is about 1.5 times.
I'm actually not seeing a difference in charges for individual policies on BCBS of California's website, after entering some sample information (zip code 90213, DOB in 1985, and then selecting male in one browser, female in another). The cheapest policy is available for $54 in premiums a month, with an annual deductible of $2900 per individual, and an annual copayment maximum of $5900 per individual.
However this policy may not be available in the San Francisco area, or may charge higher rates based on age or zip code.
Interestingly, birth control and reproductive health issues are not covered, but tubal ligations, vasectomies and elective abortions are covered, if your deductible and copayment maximums have been met for the year. I can't imagine the actuary logic behind that one.
Anyway it will not work as desired. In case SF wins lawsuit the insurance prices for women will lower a little (by several percent) just because men will unlikely to purchase insurance at much higher price. This lawsuit will effectively make the majority of men stop purchasing insurance, a little more women will be able to purchase it, but the price will be lower only by a small margin. The state will end up sponsoring health care for uninsured men.
This mechanics is well described in the article: http://cdhc.ncpa.org/commentaries/interstate-competition-in-the-individual-health-insurance-marketplace
The article itself is VERY republican-centric but the explanation is of good quality.
How is that supposed to work ? Insurances "discriminate" based on many many factors. It is very common to pay different prices on a coverage taking many factors into consideration. Will all that end ?
I believe the argument of the city is that there is no actuarial basis for the price difference. There is a difference in risk for someone whose occupation is an accountant versus someone who is a coal miner, for example. There is a difference in risk for someone who runs 5 days a week versus someone with a high BMI and low daily activity level. There is a notable risk if is a smoker or nonsmoker. The city is alleging that there is no actuarial risk difference between genders for the coverage offered by the insurers. Thus the price discrimination is unfair.
Here in Montana we have a unique "unisex" insurance law that some people are trying to get repealed.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/01/28/news/state/45-insurance.txt
"A state Senate panel is looking at the new plan to repeal Montana's 25-year-old anti-gender-discrimination law. It bans the use of gender in establishing rates on everything from car insurance to life insurance."
It comes up every few years, but they haven't managed to repeal it yet. I guess i didn't realize how important that law was!
Here in Montana we have a unique "unisex" insurance law that some people are trying to get repealed.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/01/28/news/state/45-insurance.txt
"A state Senate panel is looking at the new plan to repeal Montana's 25-year-old anti-gender-discrimination law. It bans the use of gender in establishing rates on everything from car insurance to life insurance."
It comes up every few years, but they haven't managed to repeal it yet. I guess i didn't realize how important that law was!
I agree with this. In the past I have protested the gender discrimination of young males when it comes to auto insurance (why should a responsible young male driver pay a lot more than an irresponsible young female driver -- just because of gender?) and this has opened my eyes to the health disparity. I will be protesting this on behalf of women. Wealthy insurance companies should not have the right to gender stereotype just because they have found members of a certain class fit a certain profile. That is un-American.
I dont know. For this all I'd want to see is the actuarial data. If women, for whatever reason, cost the company more than it makes sense to charge them more. If the folks in San Francisco can prove this is absolutely not the case then yes it is discrimination but do we have all the relevant information?
For health insurance why shouldnt sex be a factor that is considered if there are indeed cost differences? Is it that much different than age, congenital conditions and a million other things?
This is a business, if it costs them more, for whatever reason, it will cost you more. A good argument to move towards nat'l healthcare and remove the pure profit incentive I think but outside of that I dont see anything wrong with it. For me it all depends on what the actuarial tables show.
I have no problem banning explicit forms of gender discrimination (like car, health, or life insurance). But what about some forms of implied price discrimination? What if everyone could buy the same health insurance or car insurance but because men got in more accidents or say women had more doctors visits each gender as a whole spent different amounts?
Umm...I am shocked by the number of people here who seem okay with insurance companies discriminating based on gender. Even if I manage to get myself to a doctor less than once a year, I should be punished because other women happen to go five times? What about the men who go three times a year? It's okay for them to be paying less than I do? How is that fair?
Imagine if you went to buy car insurance and you got an increased quote because members of your ethnic group were more likely to get into an accident. Or if you were told, "Oh, birdwatchers tend to get into more single-vehicle collisions, so you have to pay the avian fee."
Why is it reasonable to require individuals to subsidize the expenses of others, simply for being part of the same demographic?
Its not discrimination per se. When you sign up for insurance, the insurance company doesn't know you from Adam, they can only guess at your costs based on people who are similar. They run the #s and figure out that women consume more health care services than men, and they price accordingly.
Its just like with car insurance. People under 30 get one rate, while people over 30 get a different rate. Doesn't matter if you're 29 & drive like you're 59 you pay more just because you're in a different group.
Now I'm not familiar with the statistics so I can't assess the quality of their determination, but that's why this isn't discrimination per se. They're basing their decision on quantifiable facts.
Next up we need to stop discriminating against and denying clients for their BMI. Since it's an arbitrary measurement and not an actual indicator of health.
While this sort of goes against an earlier post I made, its difficult for me to get worked up over health insurance discrimination when almost half the country (including me) can only dream of having any sort of health insurance. Not to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion, but thought I might put a slightly different perspective in there.
The current CA health & safety code prohibits health care service plans from discriminating in terms of price differentials on the basis of "race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, or age"...EXCEPT that discrimination is not prohibited on the basis of AGE and SEX alone "when based on objective, valid, and up-to-date statistical and actuarial data." This seems wholly inconsistent. I'm sure there are statistics showing higher rates of illnesses/diseases for certain OTHER named groups, but the current law does not allow discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation. Why not? Because it isn't right. It bothers (most of) us, even if the actuarials could be used to justify such discrimination (in fact, they HAVE been used to justify such disriminatary practices in the past). The bills introduced in the House and Senate aim to add 'sex' to the list of impermissible bases of price discrimination. There are a whole host of constitutional and policy based reasons to support this change.
well i agree with this. Women cost more when it comes to health insurance. They definitely go to the doctor more than men. You have to add in baby also if she has one.
free auto insurance quotes