American women, it’s time to wake up to what the health insurance industry has been doing to you -- discriminating against you simply because you're a woman. This dirty little business practice, called "gender rating" by the insurance industry, allows insurers to charge women more than men for simply having reproductive parts. And health reform bills would put a stop to it.

Exactly how much more are they charging women? A 2008 study by the National Women’s Law Center found that those insurers that practice gender rating charged 40-year-old women up to 48 percent more than men the same age. In fact, women who buy policies in the individual insurance market are routinely charged significantly more than men until they reach age 55, the study found.

The industry's tactics were exposed by the Senate health committee, chaired by Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski.

“Let’s start with the costs. In America today, a 25-year-old woman is charged up to 45 percent more than a 25-year-old man. Once she reaches 40, it can be up to 140 percent more. Three-in-five women today have problems paying their medical bills. And 52 percent of women say cost is a barrier to getting health care. Seventeen million women in America are uninsured today,” Mikulski said.

The reality is, women have much more trouble getting affordable health care across the board than men. Consumers Union’s President Jim Guest, who testified at the hearing, described the problems women we speak to each day have.

"Women are the ‘chief purchasing officers’ in most households," Guest said. "(And) the system today makes accessing and affording high-quality health care uniquely difficult and burdensome for women...lower incomes, more part-time work, more small businesses, more periods of unemployment to care for children or aging parents."

The stats bear that out. A survey by the Consumer Reports National Research Center in September found that women fared worse than men in most every category. By 55% to 47%, women were much more likely than men to take one or more actions to save money on healthcare. That means putting off a doctor’s visit, not filling a prescription, skipping a treatment or procedure, or not able to pay their medical bills.

Ladies, how many of you have done the same?

“The reality is clear,” Guest said. “Common health needs specific to women too often are not covered under current health insurance practices…(including) very common health needs such as benign fibroids, previous fertility treatments, pregnancies and the like. For women, the health insurance crisis is very real, very personal and very scary,"

That is the case for Amanda Buchanan, a mother of two young sons from a small Idaho town who Consumers Union first met in 2008 during our Cover America Tour. Amanda testified that she ran smack into the gender discrimination when she applied for an individual insurance policy for her and her infant son. The only policies available in her state “came with an additional maternity deductible of $5,000, plus 20% of all remaining costs.”

"At the time, my focus was on being responsible, which to me meant having insurance. I wasn’t planning on getting pregnant for some time and I really had no other choice,” Amanda says. “Several months later, my husband and I found ourselves discussing the possibility of a second child. Instead of an intimate conversation between the two of us about goals and family, I felt like there were actually three of us at the table -- myself, my husband and our insurance company.

“We had to decide if we could even afford to have a second child. And not “afford” in the sense of clothing, food, et cetera; but could we afford to pay a hospital bill?" she said. “I was very angry that an insurance company could set up a policy in a way that would either discourage women from getting pregnant altogether, or if they did become pregnant, force them to pay for basically the entire cost of a typical delivery.”

Insurers can charge women more because currently it’s up to the states to regulate insurance companies that sell individual policies. And in 40 states, women can be charged as much as 50 percent more than men, The Center study found. These lax regulations illustrate the immense power insurance industry lobbyists have in statehouses around the nation, and the need for a consistent level of fair benefits and coverage that apply to every American -- male or female.

While opponents would prefer you focused on other things that grab headlines (nasty politics, fake ‘death panels,' and the like), the reality is health reform would stop this unfair treatment, and make sure all insurance policies have a standard level of benefits – including maternity care and mammograms – and an end to discriminatory pricing.

It’s real health reform that will improve so many women’s lives – both young, middle-age and older . And it’s a change worth fighting for.

comments (19)

Comments

1 Posted by Mike at 10/27/09 02:00 PM

As far as I know, auto insurers have always charged more to men FOR THE SAME COVERAGE - except that it wasn't for the same coverage. Men have more accidents. They decided not to spread the higher costs to all drivers, but instead passed it on exclusively to men.

Here, it looks like they not sharing the higher costs incurred by women to all of the insured, but only to women. Nobody complained when they did that to men. Now, of course, it's discrimination, because they're doing it to women.

I just wish women would tell the *whole* truth, instead of only the part that makes them, once again, victims.

2 Posted by nicole at 10/27/09 02:38 PM

it takes two to tango, but it only takes one guy to cause an accident.

3 Posted by Greg at 10/27/09 02:53 PM

Mike,

Auto insurers need better regulation as well. Rather than leave both inadequately regulated, why don't we fix both? CU has, for instance, opposed the use of credit scores in setting auto rates.

However, you can live without auto insurance. Many people literally die for lack of access to health care.

And, being able to choose to have a child is a fundamental human right. As noted in the story, insurers are depriving men and women of that right.

Consumers must not fall for "divide and conquer" schemes. We would all benefit from fixing health insurance, auto insurance, credit cards, and many other things.

Greg

4 Posted by Larry at 10/27/09 05:28 PM

A company manufactures two kinds of widgets. One of them, designed for men uses a cheap wood as the basic ingredient, in order to allow the men to break the widget. The other, designed for women to be long lasting, using an expensive plastic. As a result, the men's widget sells for less than the one for women.

This is not a "dirty little practice". Rather, it is a sound business practice.

Insurance companies charge a premium which is meant to cover the expected claims plus their expenses. If, at a particular age, women cost more than men, then the premium for those women is higher than those for men. On the other hand, as people age, the health care costs for men are greater than those for women and the premiums charged reflect that difference.

As long as we do not prevent insurance companies from charging enough to cover the costs of a particular group, then we will have rates which vary by age, geographical area, and gender.

5 Posted by Craig at 10/27/09 05:35 PM

It seems discriminatory to charge higher rates for women than men, but that is the nature of actuarial science. Its based soley on the actual cost of care of specific aged people in specific categories. That is why people who smoke or who are overweight, or who are older are charged more. They are a greater risk.
While it is easy to rail against these evil insurance companies because they have a "profit motive", the entire health insurance industry averages just a 2.2 % profit margin. As far as covering for labor & delivery of a child, the parents should pay for that. The insurance company should only pay for complications and such unless they offer the coverage and you pay for it.
Having someone else pay for the delivery of your child is not a right. I paid the costs for 4 of my kids deliveries.
We do have problems within our healthcare delivery system, but having the government run it is not the answer. Name one thing in the last 100 years besides the military that they have run in an exemplary fashion.
If politicians really wanted to fix it, they would start by: allowing policies to be sold across state lines: allow individuals to write off the cost of their premiums the way business do now: allow portability of your policy: provide sensible tort reform so that doctors do not feel compelled to practice defensive medicine. Have government health centers for the poor.
These would be a good place to start rather than scrapping the best healthcare system in the world.

6 Posted by Elizabeth at 10/27/09 06:27 PM

I was without insurance for one year. When I got my new insurance and went for my mammogram, they refused to pay it saying it was a pre-existing condition. I fought them and still lost. They kept saying my mammogram is a pre-existing condition. My radiologist was awesome, he didn't make me pay the bill.

7 Posted by Thabby at 10/27/09 06:30 PM

I totally agree with Greg. I don't think man should pay more fore auto insurance as well, but when it comes to health insurance, this is even more problematic.

8 Posted by Charlie at 10/27/09 08:15 PM

I believe that there are many issues concerning fairness in business practices which should be addressed. Back when Mr Reagan was president he dismantled most of the regulatory agencies and made the agencies which were not eliminated "get out of the way of American business". He disliked those pesky regulations about how various companies could do business, how they charged for different services and so forth. His and many others pointed out that the "market place" would provide all the regulations needed to control and rein in unfair practices.

Well, we have seen just how well the market place regulates business as in the energy industry and "price fixing". When is the last time anyone has seen a "gas war" with prices for fuel going below 20cents/gal? We have all observed the effects of no regulations on the stock and bonds market and the banking and insurance industries. What our leaders in congress seemed to have "forgotten" is these regulations were put into place for a very good reason, the industries were basically robbing the people blind, forcing people to work in conditions which were unacceptable and clearly meeting in private to hatch deals to make sure that prices did not drop below a certain set point. In their wisdom our former administrations and congresses decided that such regulations were no longer needed, after all everyone KNEW that todays business people were inherently fair minded and would not do anything remotely dishonest in business! My guess is that the strain of all the new business the lack of regulations brought about caused these businesses to develop "combat stress" counting all their profits and they became "unstable" making poor business decisions. That can be the only explanation concerning the rash of unfair business practices we see committed.

Any questions class?

9 Posted by shirley at 10/27/09 11:50 PM

Mike,
How about this "whole truth:" Insurance co's cover viagra but not birth control. Explain that one.

10 Posted by Tee at 10/28/09 07:51 AM

A fact: many insurance companies have denied coverage of oral contraceptives and other prescription contraception methods for years - including the popular tubal ligation procedure. I paid OOP for birth control methods for TWENTY years. Finally, at age 45, my IUD was fully covered. This same insurance company (national HMO) would cover a vasectomy, but not a BTL!

Nearly immediately, it seems, insurers began to cover Viagra et al, for treating erectile dysfunction, when the drugs became available. Our government even pays for it for those on Medicaid.

Now, tell me how this is not discrimatory?

11 Posted by John at 10/28/09 08:18 AM

Nobody is denying anybody the right to have a child (although in some cases I wonder if that wouldn't be a good thing), but you can't ignore the realities of the costs.

Should I take money from my family to subsidize somebody else so they can have a child?

12 Posted by Carole at 10/28/09 08:55 AM

It's worth remembering that women make only 77 cents on the dollar on average to men which makes the cost of insurance a even more of a burden. And as women live longer their coverage will have to last longer.

It took having the women in the Senate to change the laws to get women even included in federally sponsored medical trials. The bias of who sets policy matters.

Amazing isn't it that Viagra had immediate acceptance for insured drug coverage but the contraceptive costs often have to be fought for. It would be interesting to see on whom the insurance dollars got spent on. Being red lined in health care is not equitable treatment. The devil is in the details.

13 Posted by at 10/28/09 01:10 PM

Charlie, I think you have been smoking crack if think that "most" of the regulatory agencies have been dismantled. There are even more today than ever.
The problem is that these agencies usually over regulate in some areas and under regulated in others.
The reason we are in this banking crisis with the sub-prime loans is that the banking regulators forced the banks to lower lending standards so that people who would not normally qualify for a mortgage could now get one and with no money down.
When the thing blew up all the politicians blamed those "greedy" bankers.
The problem with our current regulatory environment is that its too politicized and lacks comomon sense. We need to throw all the bums out and start over.

14 Posted by twinkie1cat at 10/29/09 12:15 PM

I am glad someone mentioned about insurance covering viagra but not birth control. That is one of the more bizarre issues of Republicans running the government---men have to have sex but women cannot control whether or not they get pregnant. It is very Catholic, Baptist, and Mormon to deny women even the prevention of pregnancy--forget abortion.

Until people realize that regulation of business is a good thing, that the for-profit sector must be kept honest, we will always be in danger of another recession. The fact is that Ronald Reagan and the Religious Right started America tumbling into recession by failing to regulate organizations that exist for the purpose of making money and lack the scruples to make only a responsible amount---the Right by supportng a man who clearly did not care about anyone but upper middle class white folks over a real Christian, Jimmy Carter. And even now the for profits are slipping back into their old ways by overpaying the very CEOs who contributed to the problem in the first place.

Health care has got to be pushed through in order to stop the big insurance companies from finishing what Reagan started and to get a handle on the excessive profits.

15 Posted by dleemoon at 10/29/09 12:22 PM

The Military is efficient as Craig suggests? Defense wastes more money than any other government agency since WWII. Why is it so many people like to hate the government when it does provide an efficient system? The Postal System comes to mind; ours is the cheapest, fastest, most accurate in the world but everyone from comedians to political pundits love to deride it; poor postal service is one of America’s greatest urban myths. The real jokers are UPS and Fedex. They can’t seem to ship anything to me without driving their trucks over the package; can’t get help or answers either and you get to spend more money to boot. At least with the post office one can talk your carrier you see every day or go to the local office; can’t do that with the two commercial pirates. The Coast Guard is the best of its kind in the world; our CDC is viewed by the world as the best, the Weather Service is great, nearly every Medicare recipient is happy with the service (can most say that about the private medical insurance industry?)…do not confuse the politicians, bought and paid for by Corporate America, with the working government agencies that mostly work well. Incompetence is not restricted to government enterprises alone; many Corporate monopolies have higher rates of poorly managed and dissatisfies employees leading to poor service than do most government run enterprises.

16 Posted by Susan at 11/02/09 07:58 AM

While I agree that the entire health care system is in need of repair, this is one aspect that actually makes sense to me. If women use more medical care, then it is just good business sense to charge them more. If you went to a restaurant with a friend who ordered steak and champagne, while you ate soup and salad, would you expect the bills to be the same?
As for the choice of having a child be a fundamental right: why? The propensity to breed is part of our inheritance: but part of being human and part of society is learning to govern those urges, to take on responsibility for one's action.
Let's focus on the real problem: medical costs that are rising faster than any other part of our economy. We need basic health care for all: and then need to have an intelligent discussion as to who should pay for the extreme health care we seem to want everyone to have, regardless of cost. Unless we want to keep writing checks our children and grandchildren will be forced to cover, we need to make changes.

17 Posted by Brian at 11/11/09 09:33 AM

I hear everyone complain about the rising cost of health care, but no one asks why is it rising. Why do insurance companies charge so much? Because the doctors charge so much. Why do doctors charge so much? Because of malpractice insurance. A few years back there was a doctor in my neighborhood and he was paying $60k a year for malpractice insurance.

The fix is what is commonly called Tort reform. I read that Texas has done it and now Doctors are flocking to Texas.

And in reply to the Regan comments, he successfully pulled the country out of a recession. The current administration is just making it worse.

18 Posted by Karen at 11/12/09 09:43 PM

Ok, about the postal service! you are right, it may be the best and cheapest of other areas, however, the problem is IT LOSES MONEY EVERY YEAR - NO SURPRISE! So again, we the people have to pick up the tab for the incompitance! The government doesn't know how to manage money in any area! Medical insurance for all will be a huge debt! You think you can't afford children now, just wait!

19 Posted by Andrea at 11/26/09 12:54 AM

I don't automatically have a problem with charging more to those who have higher risk, but to charge more for women _per se_ than for men, rather than distinguishing based on more sound bases such as line of work, health habits, etc., is unreasonable. It also side-steps other factors that should go into the big-picture decision, such as whether insurance companies AND the general public will benefit financially from women having greater access to preventive and other "wellness" care so that their long-term medical expenses are fewer.

To Brian, I live in Texas, and I don't see any increase in doctors happening here. In fact, I read stories quite regularly about doctors who are getting out of general areas of health, such as GPs and internists, or starting to turn away insurance because there are too many administrative costs associated with all the different rules, forms, etc. I believe in capitalism and free markets, but this is ridiculous! Why can we not do more to standardize things as simple as diagnostic codes, etc., to make it easier for doctors to do their jobs?