In nine eight states as well as the District of Columbia, it is legal for insurance companies to reject individual health coverage for people because they are survivors of domestic violence.
Among those states arefour three in the South -- Arkansas,* Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina. The others are Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming, as well as the District of Columbia.
The problem was examined in a report released last fall by the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C. Titled "Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women," the report examined the so-called "gender gap" -- the difference in premiums charged to male and female applicants of the same age and health status -- as well as other insurer policies related to gender.
It found that women often face higher premiums than men, that it is difficult and costly for women to find insurance that covers maternity care, and that insurers can reject applicants for a variety of reasons particularly relevant to women -- including domestic violence.
The Service Employees International Union, which is pressing for reform of the health insurance system, wrote about the domestic violence insurance issue at its blog on Friday:
*CORRECTION: In April, Arkansas passed a law prohibiting insurance discrimination against domestic violence survivors.
Among those states are
The problem was examined in a report released last fall by the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C. Titled "Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women," the report examined the so-called "gender gap" -- the difference in premiums charged to male and female applicants of the same age and health status -- as well as other insurer policies related to gender.
It found that women often face higher premiums than men, that it is difficult and costly for women to find insurance that covers maternity care, and that insurers can reject applicants for a variety of reasons particularly relevant to women -- including domestic violence.
The Service Employees International Union, which is pressing for reform of the health insurance system, wrote about the domestic violence insurance issue at its blog on Friday:
Words cannot describe the sheer inhumanity of this claim. It serves as yet further proof that our insurance system is broken, destroyed by the profit-mongering of the very companies [whose] sole purpose should be to provide Americans with access to care when they need it most. In 1994, an informal survey conducted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that 8 of the 16 largest insurers in the country used domestic violence as a factor when deciding whether to extend coverage and how much to charge if coverage was extended.
*CORRECTION: In April, Arkansas passed a law prohibiting insurance discrimination against domestic violence survivors.
Sicker than usual. I'm a divorce attorney. Domestic violence, but the act of it and the vast abuse of claims of it exist in a backwater of social neglect. Nobody puts in the time and effort to get real answers. Everything is quick and sloppy. Some women overreact to small things. Others take beatings for years.
Nowhere does our society's sick understanding of sex, power and family operate worse that there.
September 14, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply
I am amazed, This is definitely some thing that needs to be brought to the attention of our state senators. This reminds me that 25 years ago in SC, a man served more time in Jail for stealing a horse than raping his daughter.
September 14, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply
So, does this also mean if someone is injured during a mugging they had better have been a previous victim of a mugging to be covered? Of course not, most mugging victims span both genders. Of course only in crimes in which women are the majority of victims would the insurance companies dare to discriminate. I suspect these same companies cover the predominate male issues. So just where are the polictians on this issue? When does this garbage stop? Why in 2009 is it still permitted? Where is the outrage?
September 14, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply
the report examined the so-called "gender gap" -- the difference in premiums charged to male and female applicants of the same age and health status -- as well as other insurer policies related to gender.
The domestic violence issue IS wrong. That aside, actuaries simply base price on risk and cost so there seems to be a double standard here. Saying men and women have the same Health Status is simply wrong... both may be healthy but there ARE major differences in status. As far as being fair and in view of economic equality why would 'anything' not be at a higher cost for an individual that statistically uses it more. Women have more issues and concerns and therefore use insurance more frequently. In relation to being fair and equal, can you explain to me why it shouldn't be more expensive? I don't think we would want to raise cost on men here just to be equal and therefore give companies even more of a profit. That would just be sick.
September 15, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply
David-
You are the problem here. Do you seriously believe what you just wrote?!? Are you married? Do you have a daughter? What you just described is DISCRIMINATION!! Plain and simple.
September 15, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply
so you're saying reasonable forms of discrimination are wrong?
September 16, 2009 4:58 AM | Reply
You seem to think that the word discrimination has only negative connotations. I hope not because the government discriminates everyday... most recently with their Cash for Clunkers handouts. They DISCRIMINATED by Year and Mileage... The IRS DISCRIMINATES by Income and so does The Welfare System. SO why shouldn't a private insurance company be able to discriminate on cost and use? I don't have a family, but if I did I would be glad that my cost was lower so it could offset the rest. It is plain and simple so respectfully, I don't get your mode of thinking.
September 16, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply
They shouldn't cover maternity care and certainly shouldn't cover fertility treatments especially IVF as some states require, because these are choices that destroy the environment from overpopulation.
But they should certainly cover contraception and cover it triple.
September 18, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply
Alan & David are both living on another planet!!
Not to cover maternity care puts our country's future at risk.
As to women's "issues", do either of you even understand medicine?
Women live longr on avrage because men do not sek car for their "issues".
You are both ignorant fools who should kep their mouths closd so that others do not know how ignorant you are.
September 23, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply
This makes me sick!! I am a single mother and survivor of domestic violence, after having my face completely re-constructed and metal plates in my skull and pins in my neck and back, I struggle with DV still every time I look in the mirror our system has surely failed the ones in desperate need of care - I cannot find an insurance company that will take me because of this, they include Blue Cross Blue Shield, Coventry One, Aetna, I could go on, I have been uninsured since my abuse and my family really suffers for it... My heart goes out to women who have been abused it's something you never really recover from but this insurance problem just re-opens the wounds - I'm disgusted with our government and insurance companies who discriminate due to someone else's violent actions against women.
September 30, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply
I am on the board of a domestic violence nonprofit organization. I am shocked to learn of yet another type of abuse to victims of DV. Domestic Violence does not discriminate. It is found in all types of homes regardless of race income location etc. Therefore the notion that this can somehow prexist makes no logical sense.
October 6, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply