We reported yesterday that health insurance companies in a number of states and the District of Columbia are allowed by law to treat domestic violence as a pre-existing condition for which they can deny individual coverage.
The story was met with outrage, but it gets even worse.
The blog of the Service Employees International Union, which is pressing for health insurance reform, reports that in 2006 a Senate committee considered an amendment to the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act that would have required insurers to stop ignoring state laws that make it illegal for them to deny coverage to domestic violence survivors -- and 10 Senators, all Republicans, voted against it. They were:
* Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
* Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
* John Ensign (R-Nev.)
* Mike Enzi (R-Wy.)
* Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)
* Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
* Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
* Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)
* Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
* Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
All of those lawmakers are currently still in the Senate except for Frist, a physician who retired in 2007. In explaining his vote to CQ Today, Sen. Enzi said at the time, "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state."
Along with D.C., the states that allow insurers to treat domestic violence as a pre-existing condition are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming. In our story yesterday we incorrectly included Arkansas on this list; in fact, the state passed a law in April prohibiting insurance discrimination against domestic violence survivors.
The story was met with outrage, but it gets even worse.
The blog of the Service Employees International Union, which is pressing for health insurance reform, reports that in 2006 a Senate committee considered an amendment to the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act that would have required insurers to stop ignoring state laws that make it illegal for them to deny coverage to domestic violence survivors -- and 10 Senators, all Republicans, voted against it. They were:
* Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
* Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
* John Ensign (R-Nev.)
* Mike Enzi (R-Wy.)
* Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)
* Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
* Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
* Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)
* Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
* Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
All of those lawmakers are currently still in the Senate except for Frist, a physician who retired in 2007. In explaining his vote to CQ Today, Sen. Enzi said at the time, "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state."
Along with D.C., the states that allow insurers to treat domestic violence as a pre-existing condition are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming. In our story yesterday we incorrectly included Arkansas on this list; in fact, the state passed a law in April prohibiting insurance discrimination against domestic violence survivors.
I find this absolutely OUTRAGEOUS!!!! Shame on these Senators! But how typical!
September 15, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply
Of course this is an outrage. I would like to know the "reasoning" behind considering DV as a "pre-existing condition". My knowledge of the various "fashions" of the anti-feminist backlash, leads me to hazard a guess that somewhere along the line, defense lawyers for abusers --perhaps with the cooperation of psychologists-for-hire--invented a new "disease" that blames the victim of DV (95% of the time a woman) and claims that she has a "syndrome" of some kind; implying that she purposely found herself a man who would beat her up--and then insisted on staying with him when she could have left.
This is the same kind of "reasoning", as well as process, through which women accusing husbands of child abuse have been accused by defense lawyers for the husbands of having of a new, fake "disease" known as "parental alienation syndrome".
So this is MY best guess. Anyone have any other knowledge of how this outrageous woman-blaming--that actually made its way into law--came about?
September 18, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply
I suspect there were other requirements in the bill, less outragious than domestic violence.
September 18, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply
Thanks for the info, Sue. I too, think this is an abominable practice. I have a few questions:
1. Do you know how many insurers in NC engage in this practice?
2. Do you know if the practice is explicitly prohibited in NC or just not addressed in the statutes?
3. In the cases where pre-ex was applied, was the reason given that the denial was based on the cause of the condition rather than on the condition itself?
4. States cannot enact substantive legislation that affects self-funded insurance plans, that is the purvue of federal law. States can regulate private, non-self-funded insurance plans but in many states there are many more self-funded than non-self funded plans. Thus it would be more effective if the feds enacted the prohibition rather than individual states.
September 22, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply