Health Policy Facts
Upcoming Events
Recent Events:
To see a webcast of this event click here
The Wireless Future of Health IT
For a summary of this event click here
New Health Insurance Marketplace
For a summary of this event click here
To see a webcast of this event click here
For previous events click here
Health Policy Links
Topics
User login
COVERAGE: I Am Woman... Hear Me Pay More
People who don't get their health insurance at work and have to buy it in the individual market often pay higher prices for fewer benefits, with fewer consumer protections. Some health reform proposals would expand the individual market—without bolstering the protections or making it work more fairly and efficiently. The National Women's Law Center took a look at the problems women, in particular, faced in the individual market. It's a long list. Here are some highlights from the center's report, "Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women."
- Health insurers can reject women applicants for reasons often unique to women. For example, in nine states and the District of Columbia insurers can legally reject survivors of domestic violence. Some insurers also refuse to sell policies to women who have had a cesarean section.
- Finding maternity coverage is difficult and costly. Most health insurance plans in the individual market do not cover pregnancy. You read that right. A limited number of insurers sell separate maternity coverage riders, but they tend to cost a lot for fairly minimal coverage.
- Women pay more. Gender rating—charging women more than men—is legal in most states. NWLC researchers found that, among insurers who gender rate, insurers charge 25 year-old women up to 45 percent more than 25 year-old men and 40 year-old women are charged up to 48 percent more than 40-year-old men. Once people hit age 55, the pattern was not as clear, with 55 year old women paying premiums that ranged from 22 percent less to 37 percent more than 55-year-old men.
- Other problems in the individual insurance market apply to both men and women, but have a far greater adverse impact on women. Insurance companies also engage in premium rating practices that, while not applied solely to women, compound the affordability issues caused by gender rating that women face including setting premiums that are based on age and health status.
Double Standards?
"Women pay more. Gender rating—charging women more than men—is legal in most states"
Wow, I sure do not hear any belly aching about the higher insurance rates for men for auto and life insurance nor do I hear any complaints about the fact that we September is all but over but there was ONE WEEK for prostate awareness in which we have heard far more about giving money for breast cancer then to alert us that prostate cancer kills too. Actually, I do not remember hearing a single word about prostate cancer. Did you?
Positive Support
No one is suggesting that attention should not be paid to prostate cancer. As a disfranchised group it is important that women rally support by highlighting the issues that have the greatest negative impact on our members. If you feel not enough attention is paid to prostate cancer I encourage you to similarly rally positive support for your campaign, as surely more will be gained from community building around your cause than from negative commentary on women's issues.
Can health insurers reject
Can health insurers reject men for problems unique to men? You betcha! And by the way, plenty of men are "survivors of domestic violence" (Men are generally considered to be somewhere between 36% and 71% of the victims of domestic violence, depending on which study you pick. See, Martin Fiebert, References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses for starters).
Is "maternity coverage" solely a "women's issue"? Well, not unless women are now becoming pregnant on their own. Don't you think a father might also be concerned? Since women have a choice whether to have a child or not, and the purpose of insurance is to distribute risk, why should those choosing NOT to have a child subsidize women who do? If you choose to have a child, how about being responsible for YOUR choice? Pregnancy is not a disease.
Women use far more health services than men, so it is rational and appropriate to charge them more for insurance.
Pat. Thank you for reminding
Pat. Thank you for reminding everyone that men are victims of domestic abuse too. You are correct in that men make up 36% and 71% of the victims of domestic violence yet they have absolutely no protection. There are over 2,000 shelters for women, about 3 or 4 for men in the United States. Joe Biden, Obama's V/P running mate is the author of the reason men have no protection, the VAWA. You can find information on this on a link titled "Joe Bidden Issue Position: Women" on the first page of the Shattered Men website (available with my name above) I notice few are screaming about this either although many things in the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) actually make it more dangerous for women and it has helped very few women for the money spent on it. Media Radar has a lot of information on this and shows why we need to FIX the VAWA Now.
I would also like to address an area of health care we often hear about...the health care gap in which we are told that most of the money for health research goes for men. This is just a much a myth as the pay gap. The National Institute of Health has retracted the health care gap. I do believe it was started when special interest groups made statements such as "ONLY" 30% of all health care research goes for female specific disease. It was left for the reader to assume that the rest went for male specific disease but in reality, half that amount did. The rest went for gender NEUTRAL disease in which both genders would benifit. (note, the percentage is not accurate but used to to show the relationship of the research)
http://www.shatterdmen.com/NIH%20Retracts%20Claim.htm
Veracity is in the actuarial table
The explanation for the disparity of coverage concerning women is simple. Women have unique and often very costly medical expenses that men do not. Younger women are often on a form of birth control or fertility treatment that can range in cost from hundreds to thousands of dollars annually. Younger and middle aged women can often require expensive gynecologic and obstetric procedures that men do not. Older women can require treatment for the many side effects of menopause as well as the effects of osteoporosis. Men do not have equivalent factors.
Also, the mental health costs for women are generally higher, not because they require more than men, but because they are more likely to seek it.
Some insurers choose not to cover these procedures or treatments. As a result their premiums for women are less than those for men of equal age. This is generally because the 10 most dangerous jobs in the world are 95%+ performed by men. Serious workplace injuries for men outstrip women by a factor of 20 to 1.
So in essence - if you remove the higher cost of reproductive and mental health for women, and equalize the workplace injuries by requiring 50% of those roles be staffed by women, it's pretty much a wash.
File this one under "the scandal that wasn't".
true
I would say this is also true of men buying auto-insurance. Because men are seen as the more accident-prone driver they pay more.
However, men also drive many more miles than women, particularly for work. Many more men also drive taxis and trucks for a living.
It may actually be true that men get into more accidents, however most likely they are an a par with women per mile/hour driven (of course insurance companies only care about their likeliness to pay a claim).
In this instance what the insurance companies are doing is F'ing over everybody, and this articles pitching genders against each other and stating only women suffer from HMO's unsavory practices is just not true.
Why do women pay higher rates? Because they go to the doctor more for normal aches and pains is the answer--it's proven. But, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Ignoring warning signs and not getting checkups makes you more unhealthy (regardless of savings to the HMO). So while women may pay more, men are becoming less and less healthy. Men are more likely to be exposed to toxic chemicals with deleterious health effects, and exposed to many more dangers, not the least of which is stress. This is (probably) a major reason that men suffer from cancers (that affect both sexes) 2 to 1 versus women, and die 10 years earlier.
Not to mention if the lack of proper checkups for men leads to a major health crises the HMO may renege on their agreement/coverage (which they do frequently). So, the HMO isn't doing men any favors either. The slightly lower cost of rates isn't a fair trade-off for higher mortality. Anybody who thinks so is not very bright.
The solution is to expect more from our health care for all, not play "battle of the sexes". If anything this article (rushing to "save" women) displays that men aren't the powerful sex, but the invisible, disposable sex.
Men are 80% of the homeless, die 10 years sooner, and are 95% of the 5000 workplace deaths each year. If one of these stats were true of women instead there would be a four-alarm emergency, billions of dollars in government money, and dozens of PSA's (until it was in your dreams) to correct it.
It's time to want a good safe world for our sons, brothers and fathers just as we do for our daughters, sisters, and mothers.
Let's end the "battle of the sexes".
Breast Cancer
"If one of these stats were true of women instead there would be a four-alarm emergency, billions of dollars in government money, and dozens of PSA's (until it was in your dreams) to correct it."
We already see this for Breast Cancer vs Prostate Cancer.
We are now in Oct which is "breast cancer awareness month" Are you aware that there was one week in September for prostate cancer awareness? I heard a lot about breast cancer during that week but I did not hear anything about prostate cancer yet almost as many men die from prostate cancer as do women from breast cancer.
Walk through your local supermarket and see how many "pink" labels are on products from yogurt, to candy and cereal. Can you find even one product that supports prostate cancer research?
http://www.shatterdmen.com/prostate%20cancer.htm
In the investigation of insurance payments for Viagra versus birth control, are the media in your area also looking at the gender discrimination of HMO’s and insurance companies in two additional areas?
1. Covering tests for women for breast cancer and not covering tests for men for prostate cancer. FACT: Almost twice as many men are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year versus women diagnosed with breast cancer. In addition, virtually as many men die of prostate cancer as women who die of breast cancer, and there is no treatment for prostate cancer to date that improves a man’s life.
2. Covering tests for girls for breast cancer and not covering tests for boys for testicular cancer. FACT: 7,200 boys 15-34 will be diagnosed and 350 will die this year from the disease, much greater than girls/women in that age group dying of breast cancer.
Also, a review of the disparage between the amount spent for research and awareness campaigns on the above should be of great interest. The National Cancer Institute estimates that they will spend $332.9 million on breast cancer research this year while spending $74.0 million on the study of prostate cancer and $0 on testicular cancer. Prostate cancer receives the least amount of funding per patient of all major cancers. Source: American Foundation for Urologic Disease.
In 1997, spending on research for every death from the disease looked something like this:
Breast Cancer - $12,800 per death
Prostate cancer - $2,700 per death
The scarcity of funding for prostate cancer research creates a vicious cycle. Young and established researchers are drawn to more profitable avenues of investigation; private enterprise views the field as too risky for investment; and ideas that might lead to a cure are conceived but never completed.
This is not to say that everything that is being done to find a cure for breast cancer should not be done. However, where do men’s health issues fit in your local news analysis and reporting? What about the fact that of the 15 leading causes of death, men lead in every single category.
I do want to point out that I am well aware of the effects breast cancer has on people. I had an adopted daughter die from this horrible disease and I have a few good friends that are fighting this disease now but I do ask everyone to be just a concern about the other side that we rarely hear about also.
Is it not time to value...ALL of our people?
Positive Support
No one is suggesting that attention should not be paid to prostate cancer. As a disfranchised group it is important that women rally support by highlighting the issues that have the greatest negative impact on our members. If you feel not enough attention is paid to prostate cancer I encourage you to similarly rally positive support for your campaign, as surely more will be gained from community building around your cause than from negative commentary about women's issues.
True for insurance thru work, too
This is also true for employer-based insurance. I got the renewal plan for our company in the mail today, and the rate tables shocked me. It costs about twice as much to insure me as it would a man my age (24). Insurance for women is more expensive until age 65, and then guy's insurance is not much more expensive. It's absolutely unethical. This is for United Healthcare, BTW -- United, you should be ashamed.
Outrageous
It is completely outrageous to me that just because women have higher health care costs that women should have to pay more for health insurance. It's almost as bad as women earning less just because women work less and do less dangerous work. Being female should mean an endless stream of entitlements, at the expense of males. Obviously, higher health insurance costs for younger women than men of the same age is another form of the oppression of women by the vast patriarchy conspiracy, while higher health insurance costs for elderly men is perfectly reasonable.
Heart disease may kill more women than breast cancer, but women's overall health is not as important as ensuring there are no disadvantages to being female. So breast cancer research deserves more funding than heart disease, because men might benefit from cures for heart disease. And as for prostrate cancer, forget it, because any health care specifically for men is unfair to women, and besides, elderly women, breast cancer survivors or not, need the life insurance payout for the dead husband to pay the bills in her greater life expectancy.
Post new comment