news-record.com

BLOGS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Off the Record

State legislators should fix "discriminatory" insurance practice themselves, if that's really what it is

Among the benefits for North Carolina promised by the U.S. Senate's health-care reform bill, state Reps. Alma Adams, Pricey Harrison and Verla Insko wrote in our Ideas section Sunday, is "an end to the insurance industry's discriminatory practice of higher premiums for women."

I wonder why they don't fix that themselves.

This refers to the fact that, in the individual health insurance market, younger women pay higher premiums than younger men.

(The situation is usually reversed for older individuals, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone.

This practice is allowed, and in fact justified, by the N.C. Department of Insurance. But its policies could be changed if directed by the state legislature. As veteran legislators, Adams, Harrison and Insko could be at the forefront of such an effort.

But the issue isn't so simple. As a Department of Insurance spokeswoman explained to me after U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan (a former North Carolina state legislator) raised the complaint of discrimination several weeks ago, the reason for the disparity in premiums is because younger women are more expensive to cover.

In part, this is driven by state law, which mandates certain coverage in all individual health-insurance policies. More of these mandates apply to women than to men, such as minimum hospital stays following childbirth, mammograms and pap smears, bone-density tests, minimum hospital stays following mastectomy and reconstructive breast surgery, and contraceptives. You can read more about this in this DOI information beginning on page 11.

Based on that information, it hardly seems "discriminatory" to charge higher premiums, but Adams, Harrison and Insko should make the case in the state legislature if they truly believe this is a policy that needs to be changed.

The question then will become: Who pays if the insurance companies can't charge more to cover mandated higher costs for women?

I guess that would have to be men.

 

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

brian444

November 30, 2009 - 1:42 pm EST

If health care is a right, why should some people have to pay more for that right than others?

Connie Mack Jr

November 30, 2009 - 1:57 pm EST

When you have a Health monopoly! You can do what you want! " It's nice to be the Health Care Insurance King"

dcribar

November 30, 2009 - 2:16 pm EST

Doug:

So young women, through their insurance premia, should have to bear all of the costs associated with childbearing? Men shouldn't contribute anything beyond genetic material?

Doug

December 1, 2009 - 10:12 am EST

Of course the specific men responsible should share all family costs.

Doug Johnson

November 30, 2009 - 4:02 pm EST

This is based on cost!
Men pay more for life insurance.
Bad drivers pay more for car insurance than, good drivers!
Hagan does not seem to be concerned the 13% increase in premiums under Obama care!
That comes from Obama's bean counters, so you can more than likely double it!
Monopoly? How many companies in NC sell health insurance.
Just for show, my premiums dropped $ 36 per year and I am a year older!

John S. Nosek

November 30, 2009 - 4:25 pm EST

Congress Lacks the Courage to Tell you the Whole Truth

I have been a Medical Administrator since 1973. I have spent my entire career working through and interpreting the various Government and Insurance company policies and plans. Each change was supposed to control costs and make health care affordable to the citizens of our country. I have lived through Medicare, Medicaid, Managed Care, HMO’s, PPO’s, IPA’s, and more recently HRA’s, and HSA’s.

From all of these plans and policies, I have learned is that it is always about the money. The Insurance companies wish to make a profit. The Insurance companies and Government think Hospitals and Doctors make too much money. The Insurance companies think Doctors order too many tests and require the hospital and doctors to obtain pre-authorization for virtually all diagnostic tests and surgery to curtail costs. The threat of Malpractice forces doctors and hospitals to practice defensive medicine and order tests.

Medicare is going broke; Medicaid is an ineffective safety net. There are people in this country with serious illnesses who cannot afford health insurance. There are unethical people defrauding the system and providing care that is substandard. Insurance companies deny coverage based on any excuse they can find, such as their doctor not making a timely call (at the doctor’s expense) to ask “Mother may I” get basic tests and surgery authorized, or shamelessly cancel coverage retroactively if they find someone “forgot” to tell them about their childhood acne. Our healthcare system has some serious flaws and needs to be revised.

I applaud Congress for having the fortitude to tackle this divisive and challenging issue. However I am deeply saddened by their lack of courage when it comes to telling the American public the whole truth, and dealing with the true drivers of health care costs.

Consider this – we were told the House bill would only cost $1.2 trillion. This is true – but what Congress did not say is that they pulled out the much needed long term fix to the physician payment system and voted on it separately. This bill, which passed the House late last week – will cost over $300 billion, making the total healthcare reform costs at least $1.5 trillion.

Or consider this – The Democrats have repeatedly told you that if you like your health insurance plan you do not have to switch to a Public Option. This is true – just not the whole truth. The whole truth is that if a Public Option is implemented and priced lower than current commercial insurance rates, as Congress promises, your employer will drop your coverage and force you on to the Public Option.

I run a mid-size Surgical Practice that employs 136 people. If we were to drop health insurance for our employees and pay the 8% fine required by the House bill (for not providing health insurance to our staff) – our practice would save over $100,000 a year!

The second part of this bill requires every American to purchase health insurance or pay a fine themselves. With the average cost of health insurance now well over $300 per month per person, what would you rather do – pay $3,600 a year for health insurance or pay a 2.5% fine? If you make $50,000 a year, a 2.5% fine would only be $1,250 per year – much better than paying $3,600 a year in health insurance premiums.

Congress has promised us that the Public Option will cost less than commercial insurance. In fact, there are only three ways to make this happen: 1) reduce your benefits 2) increase your co-pays and deductibles, or 3) pay doctors and hospitals less. Considering that Medicare and Medicaid already pay physicians less than cost (50% less) – the logical solution for physicians will be to reduce access even further to Medicare, Medicaid and now Public Option patients – meaning you will have a plan that costs less, but there will not be any physicians willing to see you.

Passing a flawed bill is not a victory. We deserve better from those we have elected to represent us.

True health care reform must address the issues that impact health. Poor diet, smoking, obesity, drug use, lack of exercise and poor prenatal care are big components of the true cost of health care in the United States. Improving quality and reducing cost are not done by making sure everyone has health insurance. They are accomplished by improving the overall health of our population. This issue is not being addressed. Why not? Is it too sensitive politically? Is it now an anathema to expect individuals to be self reliant? Has personal excess replaced hard work as the overriding virtue in this country? On these issues Congress has shown a resounding lack of courage.

The House and Senate bills are both bad bills. I urge everyone to read the 2074 page Senate bill. It goes beyond mandating basic health insurance coverage for all Americans. These bills do not go far enough in some areas and go too far in others. They do not address the root causes of our health care challenge nor do they strengthen our health care system. What they do is create new subsidies for programs that have not been proven to improve healthcare at the same tine that they create an enormous new tax burden on all of us.

There are those whose medical problems and circumstances leave them in dire need. As a compassionate country we cannot ignore these people. There should be a system in place to care for these individuals in an efficient and cost effective manner. At the same time, for most of the population, personal health should be a personal responsibility. Neglect of that responsibility should not create an obligation on others who do act responsibly.

Call your representative and tell him/her that we deserve true and realistic health care reform and the whole truth this time.

Respectfully,

John S. Nosek, MPA, CMPE
Executive Director
Greensboro Orthopaedics
336-545-5000 x1110
jnosek@gsoortho.com

Brekka

November 30, 2009 - 5:13 pm EST

I want to make sure I'm read the Senate bill correctly - somewhere I read the cost of the premiums are based on the number of "medical diagnosis" you have. That is the more illnesses you have the higher cost of your premium. Which would mean as you get older, potentially your premiums would get higher. I am reading this correctly?

Connie Mack Jr

November 30, 2009 - 5:27 pm EST

The second part of this bill requires every American to purchase health insurance or pay a fine themselves. With the average cost of health insurance now well over $300 per month per person, what would you rather do – pay $3,600 a year for health insurance or pay a 2.5% fine? If you make $50,000 a year, a 2.5% fine would only be $1,250 per year – much better than paying $3,600 a year in health insurance premiums. *John

When you start applying criminal law or force fines to the masses for health. That government has truly adopted the principle of force corporate fascist slavely though "National State Socialism"........National Socialist Workers Party Of Germany...ie Nazi ..........

adamsearing

December 1, 2009 - 10:39 am EST

1. Women are charged higher premiums than men across the board not because of mandates (which add only incremental costs and are often mandates for things we all agree on – like 24hrs in the hospital after a delivery), but because they happen to be the half of our society whose members give birth to children.

2. So, yes, I agree women are more expensive to cover than men because they have more health issues associated with having kids.

3. Since having children is the only reason we continue to exist as a species (and have people to take care of us in our old age by the way), I’d say that we should be thanking our mothers, grandmothers, aunts, etc instead of charging them more than men for the same health coverage. By rights we should be giving women a discount, but I’ll settle for parity.

4. So yes, men shouldn’t get a discount on their health coverage just because they don’t bear children. Men and women should pay the same price for the same health coverage – it’s only fair.

Doug

December 1, 2009 - 11:10 am EST

Some of the mandates involve childbirth.

Your point 4 contradicts point 1, because men and women don't have the same health coverage -- you know, the childbirth thing.

You can still have a policy debate about whether we want to charge equal costs for different coverage. You can certainly find examples of doing it both ways through various forms of insurance coverage. Teenage drivers pay higher auto insurance, beachfront homeowners pay more for homeowners, older people pay more for life insurance, and so on. But in group health insurance, there's no gender distinction in premiums.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

Triad Weather

  • Current Condition: LIGHT RAIN
  • Current Temperature: 38°
  • UV Idx: 0
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 37° L: 24°

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search