I have a long list of pre-existing medical conditions, so I have a lot invested in health care and health insurance reform. But even if I didn’t have this crazy, messed-up body with all its injuries, conditions, and surgeries listed in my medical chart, I could still be denied health insurance. At the very least, I would probably have to pay more than a man would.
Why, you ask? The answer is simple. I’m a woman.
I live in Wisconsin, one of 34 states where insurance companies are allowed to use gender as a factor when determining premiums. According to a new study from the National Women’s Law Center, in Wisconsin I can be charged anywhere from 10 to 20 percent more than a man would be charged for a health insurance policy.
The NWLC study contained data for all 50 states, including 107 plans for Wisconsin. One hundred percent of the plans incorporate gender ratings. The NWLC study found that 50 percent of these plans charge anywhere from 1 to16 percent more for a woman who is a nonsmoker than for a man who is a smoker. Results varied in other states, with a nonsmoking woman being charged as much as 63 percent more than a male smoker in Arkansas. Yikes.
The study also found that none of the individual policies in the Badger State include maternity coverage. Heaven help me if I ever want to get pregnant.
I was curious to find out the difference between men’s and women’s premiums in Wisconsin, so I went to eHealthInsurance.com, the website NWLC used for its research, to get a quote. It asked for my zip code, gender, date of birth, tobacco usage in the last six months and if I was a full-time or part-time student. The cheapest plan was with Anthem (Blue Cross) and had a monthly premium of $70.92, plus an upfront $5,000 deductible and 30 percent after that. Pap smears and mammograms were covered, but there was no maternity care, period.
Just for kicks, I asked for a second quote. This time I said I was a man who had smoked in the last six months. I was shocked at the results. Anthem’s cheapest policy was $57.12 per month with the same deductible as my first quote. That’s a 19 percent difference between what Anthem charges women and men for the same coverage. This means that a woman would pay $166.60 more per year than a man but still wouldn’t have maternity care included in her insurance plan.
Whether or not there’s a public option in the bill, there absolutely must be health care reform. Insurance companies simply cannot discriminate against half the population. When women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes (and women of color earn even less), they simply cannot afford to spend more for health care.
Women need health care reform. Now.
Guest blogger Danine Spencer has a bachelor’s degree from Minnesota State University, Mankato, and is a freelance writer focusing on politics, women’s rights, and health care.
Is there a cure-all in sight, especially for those individuals most afflicted in our country today? When does the health insurance industry plan to stop restricting insurance coverage for those afflicted with a pre-existing condition? This is a rather archaic attitude and it is high time this practice transforms into insurance coverage that is more suitable for the mass public. It seems the individuals that need the health coverage the most are the same individuals who are desperate.
Part of the difficulty is with the undefined term of pre-existing condition, as it is very vague. Until the present time it has been to the discretion of the various New York insurance firms to define as they see fit. The insurance firms have made this decision long before they established the health insurance quotes they recite to a multitude of individuals. Yet, the thousands of medical doctors who care for these patients have a different list which conflicts with the insurance companies. The main reason why defining what a pre-existing condition is so difficult and vague.
Well, I have to admit I’m concerned about the public option, just from the little I read. One section in the House bill reads “NO BAILOUTS”. What happens if the public option isn’t financially solvent and goes bankrupt? What happens to its consumers and patients?
I think the public option as it is now needs a lot of work. They should either expand the program greatly or maybe – I hate to say it – eliminate it.
Like Ms. Spencer I have too many chronic illnesses to count and am grateful to have NYS Retirement Health Insurance. I pay $211 a month for a family policy. Yet despite having good coverage I’m thousands of dollars in debt due to co-pays for doctors, hospitals and prescriptions. I admit I have not made it through the 1,000 pages of the health bill but I haven’t heard the issue of co-payments discussed by anyone. If 100% of a bill isn’t going to be covered someone with little to no ability to cover a co-pay will quickly find themself either unable to use the new health insurance program or in yet another bad situation financially due to mounting medical bills.