Informed Opinions : Re-Examining Insurance and Marital Status

Last week, a task force for the California Department of Insurance issued a report urging state regulators to eliminate insurer discrimination against unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples. Noting that by the year 2000 unmarried individuals will comprise a majority of the state’s population, the study recommended the passage of state regulations declaring marital status-based rate bias to be an unfair business practice. The report also urged the Department of Insurance to take legal action against health insurance companies that refuse coverage to “domestic partners” of employees.

*

Should marital status be a factor in the calculation of insurance premiums and the granting of coverage?

Michael Chee, spokesman for Woodland Hills-based Blue Cross of California:

“Our rates are unisex, and premiums are determined by age and area of residence. Barring any serious pre-existing medical conditions, Blue Cross offers coverage to all individuals in the state. Blue Cross does adhere to California’s definition of marriage when providing family health care coverage. This definition found in the state’s Civil Code says: ‘Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties making that contract is necessary.’ ”

Robert F. Gentry, mayor of Laguna Beach, which passed a citywide “domestic partners” ordinance last year granting gay and lesbian couples rights similar to those of married couples:

“I think the state of California and the insurance companies need to stop treating people differently depending on their lifestyle. That’s incorrect. It’s a very false and arbitrary standard that just because you have this piece of paper your spouse is eligible for coverage, and people involved in long-term, committed relationships are not.”

Richard Jennings, executive director of Hollywood Supports, an entertainment industry project which opposes anti-gay discrimination in the workplace:

“Because same-sex couples are not permitted to marry anywhere in the United States, preferred rates and coverage based on marriage status always have a discriminatory impact on gays and lesbians. A growing number of enlightened employers have begun to address some inequities in employment benefits, including health insurance coverage, for gay, lesbian and other unmarried employees. More global reform on a statewide basis is clearly necessary, however, to eliminate the pervasive discrimination that currently exists.” Robert Gore, vice president of the Assn. of California Insurance Companies:

“We feel that it’s best left up to the individual companies. It’s complex when you get involved in defining what a couple is. It’s a matter that should more properly be taken up by the state. We take our cue from the law.”

Dr. Scott E. Daniels, director of ethics and health policy for the Family Research Council, a Washington-based research and lobbying group:

“Research on marriage and health outcomes strongly indicates that the married are generally healthier than the unmarried. This growing body of evidence suggests that stable families should not be penalized for their healthier lifestyles as the California recommendation would do. It is irrational for insurance companies to ignore or to be prohibited from considering the importance of marital status in underwriting health insurance policies.”