news-record.com

Kay Hagan and other women senators made a big push last week for ending what they view as gender discrimination in health insurance.

One goal of proposed health reform legislation, the Greensboro Democrat said on the Senate floor, is "stopping insurance companies from charging women more than men."

"We want equal benefits for equal premiums," Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., added.

Framing health care reform as a women's issue is a smart strategy for proponents. They have a lot of ammunition in a report by the National Women's Law Center, which found "huge and arbitrary variations in each state ... in the difference in premiums charged to women and men."

Hagan gave two personal examples -- her daughter and son, both in their 20s. Carrie pays more for her health insurance policy than does Tilden, "for no other reason than her gender," said Hagan. The senator also mentioned a 23-year-old female staff member in North Carolina who priced the "basic, best-selling plan" at $235 a month. A man of the same age would pay only $88, Hagan said.

These circumstances apply in the individual health insurance market, affecting 7 percent of non-elderly women in 2007, according to the NWLC. Employer-based insurance plans are required to charge the same for men and women. The question is whether so-called "gender differentiation" is ever justified, and to what extent.

Insurance companies set varying premiums for all kinds of coverage. Auto insurance costs more for young, inexperienced drivers. Homeowners' insurance costs more in hurricane-prone coastal areas than farther inland. Because women live longer than men, they usually pay less for life insurance.

Companies must support rates with hard data, Kristin Milam, director of public information for the N.C. Department of Insurance, said Monday.

Women incur greater medical expenses into middle age -- generally the child-bearing years -- and are charged higher premiums. Then the gender differentiation begins to reverse. Older men experience more medical problems. Some insurers, though not all, the NWLC said, charge older men more.

"Equal benefits for equal premiums" would eliminate gender distinctions at all ages. But, would leveling costs mean that younger men and older women end up paying more?

Hagan's office says no, contending that proposals to force people who are presently uninsured -- many of them younger, healthy Americans -- to purchase health insurance would create more revenue and spread risk. The public should hope that's right.

Eliminating arbitrary discrepancies in insurance premiums is warranted, but imposing a doctrine of equality ignores realities that are widely recognized in the insurance field: Some risks are greater than others.

Ask a homeowner at Topsail Beach or anyone who has a 16-year-old son with a driver's license.