SUN EDITORIAL:

Gender-biased premiums

Study finds women, on average, pay more than men for health insurance on the open market

Mon, Nov 10, 2008 (2:07 a.m.)

When women who are not covered by an employer’s health insurance plan seek to buy coverage directly from an insurer, they are normally charged much higher premiums than men, particularly if they are younger than 55, according to a national study.

The nonprofit National Women’s Law Center in Washington found that to be the case in 38 states, including Nevada. Those states allow the insurers to charge different rates based on the customer’s sex, a practice known as gender rating.

The law center’s study, released in September, focused on the cost of health plans offered to 25-, 40- and 55-year-old men and women on the open market in capital cities throughout the United States.

Among the findings was that a 40-year-old woman living in Carson City pays on average 11 to 39 percent more than a 40-year-old man for the same best-selling plans available.

Insurance industry representatives were quoted in the study as saying women pay higher premiums because they typically have higher costs for hospital stays, physicians’ visits and other medical care. But the law center made a valid counterargument by stating that many women have lower health expenses than men of the same age.

“Individual insurance providers should not charge a higher premium based on a generalization about women as a class that is not necessarily applicable to the individual woman being insured,” the report stated.

It is both unfair and discriminatory to charge a woman more than a man for insurance when their health is relatively the same. Ten states have come to that conclusion and two others have limited the use of gender rating, but Nevada is not one of them.

This would be a worthy issue for the Nevada Legislature to explore during its 2009 session. Insurers should be made to explain to lawmakers why a woman, who may incur lower health care expenses than a man of the same age, can wind up with higher premiums. There has to be a fairer solution than what is now allowed under state law.

Discussion: 9 comments so far…

By KDR81

11/10/08 at 7:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Here is the explanation:

Women get pregnant. Men don't.

Disallowing price discrimination means the price for men goes up.

That means we will have more men go uninsured.

If you want the price of pregnancy to go down, get rid of 3rd party payer systems and move toward Health Savings Accounts.

Doctors like to tack on all sorts of unnecessary procedures for pregnant women just to drive the bill up. Women don't care so it goes to the insurance company to pay. Insurance company must charge women more.
By KDR81

11/10/08 at 7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

By the way, is that Women's center going to complain about men paying higher car insurance or is their deafening science from their quarters?
By gunowners4obama

11/10/08 at 7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wall St crashed and burned, and only then did the American public change party leadership. After Wall St., everybody was pointing fingers. But it's been coming since Reagan

The health care system is on track for a crash, too - big time. Every time I go to a doctor he/she wants to prescribe pills and order some sort of procedure. I avoid them. Baby boomers are aging and retiring. The health care system is going to collapse.

The American people need to wake up, stay involved, and start pushing for this system to be reined in. And stop going along with all the bull$#!+ procedures your doctors order.
By gunowners4obama

11/10/08 at 8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

By the way, employer avoidance of health care has everything to do with the increasing costs due to these unnecessary procedures. And that's huge during childbirth. What's a woman in labor going to do when she's told some procedure is "recommended"?

Doctors need to be rated and sanctioned somehow for ordering unnecessary procedures - within reason, of course.

At least we can hope that the FDA will now stop being an arm of the pharmaceutical/health care industry.
By renomuse

11/10/08 at 10 a.m.

Suggest removal

The problem with the answer "women get pregnant, men don't" bullcrap is that men get women pregnant. Health insurance covers Viagra and many don't cover birth control.

Down with such hypocrisy!
By KDR81

11/10/08 at 10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Health Savings Accounts will do just that G4OBama.

By eliminating the middleman, people will be interested in knowing what procedures cost, why they are necessary and will decide what they are willing to pay for.

That will even eliminate the hospitals ability to charge for circumcisions on girls.
By redferret

11/10/08 at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Another issue is that men tend to have a lot more of the problems that strike older people, ie heart attacks and strokes. Additionally it has been well documented that men tend to get into more accidents due to being men. They get more construction accidents, they get into more fights, and in general do a lot of the dumb stuff (any one seen a female on Jackass lately?). On the issue of women getting pregnant, what about sterile women, or women over 40 who probably won't have kids. Your argument KDR is pretty weak.
Also as for men having higher insurance than women for driving... Men have overall a tendency to be far more aggressive on the road. Hence the higher premiums, because men under 30 tend to do more bone-headed things on the road.
By KDR81

11/10/08 at 3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Redferret,

Economists have shown that even single unmarried women or women who don't plan on having kids suffer from the stigma of potentially getting pregnant and will pay accordingly. For salaries that means an extra 2% less for health insurance that means 4% more.

As far as me, I drive a vehicle that is slow, it doesn't want to go fast, yet I have to pay a premium that reflects the stupid nature of unmarried male drivers with no kids roughly my age.

Its called actuarial science. Its not a weak argument, in fact, that Women's Law Center admits it. Their caveat is that giving birth to babies creates a societal benefit so women should be subsidized (which is nonsense).
By redferret

11/10/08 at 3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Actually I just realized a point that totally undoes your argument, in Nevada and other states insurance companies don't pay for pregnancies because they are considered a pre-existing condition. Since in Nevada insurance companies don't pony up for all the necessary treatments, people have to do it on their own. So why are women penalized?