Stop Rewarding “Macho Men”: Ban Gender Rating in Health Insurance
Posted August 19th, 2009 by Thao NguyenBy Brigette Courtot, Senior Policy Analyst, National Women’s Law Center
Intrigued by the news headline “For macho men, doctor visits are less likely,” I recently checked out a new study showing that men “most devoted to traditional beliefs about masculinity” are considerably less likely than other men to get routine, preventive medical care—such as a prostate exam or a flu shot. Researchers assessed beliefs about masculinity by asking 1,000 men how much they agreed with statements like “When a man is feeling pain, he should not let it show,” and “When a husband and wife make decisions about buying major things for the home, the husband should have final say.” They found that men who buy into the “macho man” bit are generally the same ones who don’t go to the doctor when they should. Granted, the new research doesn’t make a clear cause-and-effect link between men’s beliefs about masculinity and avoidance of health care, though the lead author suggests that “deep-seated masculinity beliefs are one core cause of men’s poor health, inasmuch as they reduce compliance with recommended preventative health services.”
Now, let’s make some connections here. First, we know that on average, men use less health care than women, including preventive care. We also know that women are penalized because of this distinction. Insurance companies typically justify the practice of “gender rating” (i.e. using gender to determine health insurance premium rates, often resulting in women paying considerably more than men for the exact same coverage) with statistics showing that women use more care than men. So gender rating, in effect, punishes women for using more care and rewards men for using less. But why are men using less health care? In some cases, they may not need it—they typically don’t have to go in for regular reproductive health visits, for instance. But in other cases, as the masculinity study indicates, men might be skipping recommended care in part because of their devotion to “macho man” ideals. And do we really want to reward that devotion? Access to health insurance should be fair and equitable, which is why we need health reform that eliminates gender rating and stops penalizing those who need and use more health care, and rewarding those who don’t need or use it.
9 Comments
October 28, 2009 at 5:21 pm by AdamThe problem with eliminating gender (and age) ratings is that it will cause young men’s premiums to skyrocket. If this happens, many men will drop out of the pool altogether driving up premiums even more. No young male wants to pay a wildly disproportionate share of the costs relative to what he uses. If my premiums soar, I’ll pay the fine and opt out. If the fine is too steep, I’ll make it my goal to utilize as many healthcare resources as I possibly can even if not medically necessary. I refuse to throw away money on a monthly basis and get very little in return. *One side note. Although many elderly are on fixed incomes, many young people today are graduating with $70,000-$150,000 worth of student loan debt with moderate incomes. That puts things in perspective
[Reply]
September 9, 2009 at 2:14 am by reggggNice argument. We spend more, so you should pay. You can twist it any way you want, but it still comes down to that you don’t want to pay your fair share for health care. I don’t hear any women wanting to pay the same as men for car insurance.
Maybe all men should flood the health care system so they get their money’s worth. Increase the cost for everyone. That’s the problem with any socialist plan. There is no individual incentive to control costs.
I also think everyone should pay one amount per week for their groceries. It’s not men’s fault they consume more calories. Then I can eat myself into state where I finally get my money out of the the health insurance system.
[Reply]
August 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm by Elena PerezYou can actually take action on this right now if you’re a California resident!
AB 119 would ban gender-based discrimination in health insurance pricing, and it’s coming to floor vote in the California state Senate on Thursday!
Take action with California NOW and tell your state Senator to support the bill: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2009/08/stop-genderbased-health-insurance-pricing.html
[Reply]
August 19, 2009 at 2:00 pm by SueLet’s go another step and ask that age rating also be eliminated. Seniors end up paying more for healthcare coverage than young adults and children. If the premiums were fair and equitable with respect to gender and age, then seniors and women would see their rates lower while men and children would have their rates rise. Therefore, young adults and families should be required to pay more for their healthcare to enable the elderly, who are on fixed incomes, to afford their premiums. This would be fair and equitable.
[Reply]
Brigette Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 11:44 am
@Sue, I agree that it is important that health coverage be affordable for older people. THis is especially critical for women, who are poorer than men in general.
Many features of the health reform bills that Congress is currently considering would help older women and men get affordable coverage. The bills would still allow age rating, but would limit the amount that premiums can vary by age to a 2:1 ratio, meaning that an older person could only be charge a maximum of two times the premium that a younger person is charged. Health status rating would be prohibited, of critical importance to older people who in general have higher incidence of health problems than their younger counterparts. Finally, the bills would both establish a system for subsidizing insurance premiums for low- and moderate-income people, which would certainly help older people on fixed-incomes.
[Reply]
Chris Eddie Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@Sue, that sounds the opposite of “fair and equitable.”
[Reply]
Ever heard of pregnancy?
[Reply]
Brigette Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 10:52 am
@Chris Eddie, You imply that the fact that women can become pregnant is an acceptable justification for gender rating. But the majority of health plans available to women in the individual insurance market do not include coverage for maternity care, and they are still gender-rated. We’ve found that–if they are allowed to do so–insurance companies use gender to determine premiums regardless of whether a plan covers the care a woman needs during pregnancy.
[Reply]
Chris Eddie Reply:
August 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
@Brigette, I am not an expert on health care. However, I am the owner of a small business. One example… I had a 26 year-old female that had individual coverage. It was so much cheaper than our group plan that I just paid her premiums.
When we renegotiated our health plan, I found out that her individual coverage did not cover pregnancy. We didn’t want her to find herself in a bad place should she get pregnant, so we put her on the company plan. Even at our renegotiated rates, it cost me 3x as much on the company plan.
Are you finding that this is not typical? I was ecstatic paying her individual premiums (similar to men’s at that age), but not so happy on a group plan.
Your thoughts?
[Reply]
Leave a Comment