Gender (rating): A pre-existing condition?

    Posted September 14th, 2009 by

    As nails continue to be hammered into the public option coffin, I am baffled at the professed public’s willingness to trust the health insurance industry. After all, this is the group that brought us gender-rating. Gender rating is a practice where insurance companies charge women more than men for individual health insurance policies even if these women and men are the same age and in the same risk category. In most states including my home state of Connecticut, major insurance companies like Human, UnitedHealth, Aetna and Anthem, a unit of WellPoint, charge higher premiums for women than men from ages 19-55. Often these pricing disparities are sizable, in cases upward of 50 percent. It is no coincidence that these higher premiums correspond with a woman’s child baring years.

    Beyond blatant discrimination, the message insurance companies is sending women is that even before children become a thought, they are the full financial responsibility of the mother. How politically incorrect is that? What’s worse is that independent women tend to need individual health insurance policies more than men because they tend to hold part-time or more flexible jobs in order to care for children or other family members. Men are more likely to hold salaried positions where health insurance options are a part of their employment package. Often divorcing or widowed women wake up the shock that their health insurance premiums often more than double when they have to go off the family plan, just at a time when they are financially strapped.  Women aren’t the only ones who should be offended by this notion that children are the sole responsibility of mothers. Fathers or prospective fathers should cringe at the implication that they are shut out of the financial responsibility of child baring and rearing.

    What surprises me most about the current healthcare debate is that there is very little public discourse about the gross inequity of gender-rating. Talk show hosts, newspapers and even the President rarely mention it. I hope that whatever healthcare reform comes our way abolishes the practice of separating out insurance pricing according to gender. As for the insurance companies: fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us!

    * * * * *
    Posted Under: Uncategorized
    Permalink

    4 Comments

    September 18, 2009 at 6:07 pm by Mary Randolph

    I think there should not be a difference in the
    cost of insurance for women versus men.I found
    this site that for a discounted fee will enroll
    and cover maternity care for women,which will
    cover them until we get the health bill passed
    that will provide that care,it is an alternative.

    [Reply]

    September 16, 2009 at 7:50 am by Sandra

    I hope healthcare reform passes. Most of the healthcare dollars are being spent wastefully on seniors. The president’s plan will cut this wasteful spending so that single women and single moms can get affordable healthcare that is competitive with the rates offered to men and children. It’s not fair that rates for women are higher just because women use healthcare more for having babies.

    [Reply]

    September 15, 2009 at 1:20 pm by CarHomeLife Insurance

    It is so true and heart rendering.

    [Reply]

    September 14, 2009 at 7:50 pm by Hechicera

    I remember back when I learned to drive (eek late 70s) that our family couldn’t afford insurance for my brother, just me, since the auto insurers gender-rated then.

    It was just as unfair when they did it to male teen drivers as adult female potential mothers. I think gender-rating auto insurance is illegal now. If that is true (I’m not 100% sure), is there anything we can learn from the fight to end gender-rating in teens on auto insurance?

    [Reply]

    Trackbacks

    1. The economics of sitter-swapping. Plus: A call back to the basics for Boeing; The 2009 legislature in review; Gender-based health insurance rates; Paid sick days needed for pandemic flu « Washington Policy Watch
    2. The economics of sitter-swapping. Plus: Back to basics for Boeing?; 2009 legislative review; Gender bias in health insurance; Paid sick days for flu « Washington Policy Watch
    3. The economics of sitter-swapping. Plus: Back to basics for Boeing?; 2009 legislative review; Health insurance gender bias; Paid sick days for flu « Washington Policy Watch

    Leave a Comment

    Your name is required
    An Email address is required

    Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail

    x
    READ OTHER MOMSRISING STORIES