NYT: Women pay more for same health insurance

From the NYT:

Women Buying Health Policies Pay a Penalty

It has been found that women could be charged as much as 31 percent more than men when buying the same health care plan. With more and more deregulation of health care, more individuals have to shop around for plans offered by private insurance companies, who are free to set up their own standards for pricing. Justifications for charging women more include childbearing-related issues and higher frequency of going in for regular checkups.

“Women often fare worse than men in the individual insurance market,” said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee.

Insurers say they have a sound reason for charging different premiums: Women ages 19 to 55 tend to cost more than men because they typically use more health care, especially in the childbearing years.

But women still pay more than men for insurance that does not cover maternity care. In the individual market, maternity coverage may be offered as an optional benefit, or rider, for a hefty additional premium.

Crystal D. Kilpatrick, a healthy 33-year-old real estate agent in Austin, Tex., said: “I’ve delayed having a baby because my insurance policy does not cover maternity care. If I have a baby, I’ll have to pay at least $8,000 out of pocket.”

In general, insurers say, they charge women more than men of the same age because claims experience shows that women use more health care services. They are more likely to visit doctors, to get regular checkups, to take prescription medications and to have certain chronic illnesses.

Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, an advocacy group that has examined hundreds of individual policies, said: “The wide variation in premiums could not possibly be justified by actuarial principles. We should not tolerate women having to pay more for health insurance, just as we do not tolerate the practice of using race as a factor in setting rates.”

This is akin to employers who will deny a woman a promotion or a critical job position because they perceive a potential for her to go on maternity leave or to leave the job completely. In addition to being discriminatory, this practice also does not reflect the real impacts of differential use of medical services. Other than for maternity issues, I predict that men tend to have more need for acute treatment because they tend to not be as regular about periodic screenings and checkups as women, and that would be more expensive or at least a wash in the long run.

Once again, a focus purely on profits is getting in the way of fairly providing services to human beings.

"Untouchable" Woman Dies After Birth

Maya Devi, a Dalit woman in India, died yesterday, 24 hours after an unassisted birth outside the Kanpur Medical College maternity ward in Uttar Pradesh. Her son died almost immediately after being born, and she herself was only admitted to the hospital after this - where she then died from multiple cardiac arrests.

Was she denied care because she's poor? Or even because she's a woman? Maybe, given locale, her religion?

No. Devi was denied medical care, which ultimately cost her and her son their lives, because the Dalit are considered untouchables in India's social/caste system, and despite claims by many that this system is no longer an active part of Indian life - well, evidence shows the contrary.

It's easy to forget, sometimes, when writing about meat (or brains) in vats, abortion as performance art, and other "first world" issues that there are grievous harms against women still occurring as a matter of routine.

That such an attitude, of refusal to treat someone because of her caste, would permeate the hallowed halls of learning (as I idolize academia), to the point that the chief medical superintendent would let the woman lie there and tell her she wouldn't be helped because of her caste is just an utterly shocking, really horrifying, idea for my admittedly progressive, feminist Western mind. How do you rise to such a position in medicine, and then lack the basic compassion necessary to help someone in pain?

The only small glimmer of positives from this story? Doctor Kiran Pandey, head of the hospital gynecology unit, when hearing of the Devi's case, immediately returned from her out of town trip in an effort to treat Devi (although she and the intensive care staff ultimately failed), and the doctors who so callously refused Devi help have been suspended pending a full investigation.
-Kelly Hills

Update on the Genetic Nondiscrimination Bill

One of the things that both conservative and progressive bioethicists have agreed on is the merit of GINA ((the Genetic Non-discrimination Act). And there was great hope when it passed the House easily and may of us saw it as a potential solution to the injustice of genetic discrimination. So what's happening with the bill? Seems it has been stalled in the Senate, single-handedly by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahama). The scoop, according to Wired, is that Coburn is saying that it could place too much strain on businesses.

Where's the outrage on this?

Over at the Business Ethics Blog: Sexism in Coffee Shops

Thanks to Chris MacDonald over at the Business Ethics Blog for posting this interesting tidbit about Waiting for Good Joe: Do coffee shops discriminate against women? Who would have thunk it? You can read the full post here.