Striving for Gender Equality in Health Insurance Coverage
As we approach 2010, one would hope that there would be more gender equality in several areas of our lives, such as employer compensation, business and political clout, and even health insurance. Sadly it's not the case, but recently here in California, there were multiple steps taken regarding gender equality in health insurance coverage, one of them was a step forward, one a step backward.
In an article from the San Francisco Examiner entitled, "Healthy balance: New measure aims for gender equality for health insurance," the article first talks about a new law that prohibits health insurance companies from charging different rates based on a person's gender. The practice is typically called "gender rating," and a recently passed law stops the practice. According to the article, this means that over a million residents will now have access to more affordable health care coverage. This should hopefully convince more women to buy health insurance coverage as well, since many of them remained uninsured entirely due to higher costs.
While the passage of this bill is a good step in the right direction, all is not well for women in California when it comes to health insurance. Governor Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a bill that would have required health insurance companies to financially cover maternity care on individual policies. Group policies -- those people get through their employers -- have been required to cover maternity care since the late 1970's, but individual policies have no such requirement.
In California, only a quarter of the individual health insurance plans offered to women offer maternity coverage, and seven involve merely partial coverage. In his remarks on the veto, Governor Schwarzenegger said he thought this bill would "translate to fewer individuals being able to afford coverage," and couldn't support it because he thought it would raise the cost of health care. While this is a valid concern, one could also say this would get more women to buy health insurance in the first place, which one would think widen the pool of insured individuals and keep costs affordable.
So while it's good that more women will have access to affordable health insurance at the same prices men get, it's disheartening that many pregnant women won't get coverage for the maternity care they need. This leads one feeling torn on the issue. One the one hand, it's a step toward more equality for women regarding health coverage, but does the vetoing of the other bill negate that step forward entirely? That may be a simplistic view of such a complex issue, but it's something to think about, regardless. Hopefully we'll see more equal treatment of women and their health insurance costs in the future, but until then, I guess we can savor the small victories.
