By Michelle Andrews
Kaiser Health News
Starting next year, the Affordable Care Act will largely prohibit insurers who sell individual and small-group health policies from charging women higher premiums than men for the same coverage.
Long-term-care insurance, however, isn't bound by that law, and the country's largest provider of such coverage has announced it will begin setting its prices based on sex this spring.
"Gender pricing is good for insurance companies," said Bonnie Burns, a policy specialist at California Health Advocates, a Medicare advocacy and education organization, "but it’s bad public policy and it's bad for women."
Genworth Financial says the new pricing reflects the fact that women receive two of every three claims dollars. The change will affect only women who buy new individual policies, or about 10 percent of all purchasers, according to the company. The new rates won't be applied to existing policyholders or those who apply as a couple with their husbands.
"This change is being made now to reflect our actual claims experience and help stabilize pricing," Genworth Financial spokeman Thomas Topinka said in an e-mail.
Women's premiums may increase by 20 to 40 percent under the new pricing policy, said Jesse Slome, executive director of the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance. The average annual premium for a 55-year-old who qualified for preferred health discounts and bought between $165,000 and $200,000 of coverage was $1,720 last year, according to the association.
Experts say they expect other long-term-care insurers will soon follow suit.
Long-term-care insurance provides protection for people who need help with basic daily tasks such as bathing and dressing. It typically pays a set amount for a certain number of years -- say, $150 daily for three years -- for care provided in a nursing home, assisted living facility or at home. Never a very popular product with consumers, many of whom found it unaffordable, in recent years the industry has struggled and many carriers have raised premiums by double digits or left the market.
Consumer health advocates say they aren't surprised that women's claims for long-term-care insurance are higher than men's.
Because women typically live longer than men, they frequently act as caregivers when their husbands need long-term care, advocates say, thus reducing the need for nursing help that insurance might otherwise pay for. Once a woman needs care, however, there may be no one left to provide it.
"Women live longer alone than men," Burns said. "If you don't have a live-in caregiver when you start needing this kind of care, you’re in big trouble."
LuMarie Polivka-West knows the potential problems all too well. Polivka-West, 64, is the senior director of policy and program development for the Florida Health Care Association, a trade organization for nursing homes and assisted living facilities. (I first spoke with Polivka-West two years ago, when she discussed the financial challenges she and her two brothers faced caring for their aging parents.)
About 15 years ago, she bought a long-term-care policy. The company went out of business after five years, and she let her policy lapse rather than switch to another plan with higher premiums and less comprehensive coverage. But she's reconsidering that decision. Polivka-West's husband is four years older than she is. Her mother died of Alzheimer's disease at age 89 after struggling with it for eight years. What if a similar fate awaits her?
Polivka-West thinks insurers shouldn't be allowed to charge her more just because she's a woman.
"The Affordable Care Act recognized the gender bias in health insurance," she said. "The same [rules] should apply to long-term-care insurance."
The federal health overhaul sought to eliminate the coverage and price discrepancies in the larger health insurance market. A 2012 study by the National Women's Law Center found that 92 percent of top-selling health plans in the individual market practiced sex-based pricing in states where the practice was allowed. (Fourteen states banned or limited the practice, according to the report.) Nearly a third of plans charged women at least 30 percent more than men for the same coverage, even plans that did not include maternity benefits, the study found.
Insurers that sell individual and small-group health policies on the state-based health insurance exchanges or outside them on the private market in 2014 will be able to vary premiums based only on geography, family size, age and tobacco use. (Plans that have grandfathered status under the law are exempt from these requirements.)
Under federal laws against sex discrimination in the workplace, employers are generally prohibited from charging women more than men for the same health insurance coverage.
Meanwhile, Genworth Financial says it won't switch to gender-based pricing for long-term care in two states—Colorado and Montana--that prohibit varying premiums based on gender in all health insurance products.
As states move to bring their laws into conformance with the gender rating requirements under the Affordable Care Act, some advocates see an opportunity.
"Any state with a strong advocacy group could be advocating for a very broad-based prohibition against gender rating" in all insurance products, says Donna Wagner, the associate dean for academic affairs at the College of Health and Social Services at New Mexico State University who also chairs the policy committee for the Older Women’s League, an advocacy group.


One problem with challenging the gender biased insurance - they obviously spread the extra costs for a woman out and charge more for men - why should single men have to pay more for their insurance so that single women can be insured?
I suppose the same reason why any healthy person might have to pay more for their insurance so that people with cancer can be insured? I understand the argument, but I pay taxes for schools and education even though I have no children. I'd be happy to have that money back too, but it's the price we pay for civilized society.
Emagin, you can say the same thing about the so called "Un-Insurable" that Obozocare is supposed to take care of. 40% of the Uninsured in this country are uninsured by CHOICE. They are predominantly Singles in their 20's and 30's who are at their best, health wise. They see no point in paying for health insurance they don't need. They would rather pay cash for maybe the yearly physical or pay for their own birth control (Imagine that?)
NOW, under Obozocare these people will be forced to purchase insurance to reduce the overall premiums because those deemed as un-insurable would have very large premiums.
You can't have it both ways.
You really need to read the bill, the bottom line is that Obama does care, its the insurance companies that want more stock options and a big bonus added to their pay checks.
Is this country turning communistic? Last I heard we are still a capitalistic country although this president wants to change that. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN COMPANIES WANTING TO BE PROFITABLE A REWARD EMPLOYESS AS THEY SEE FIT. I am sick of President Robin Hood.
Narcolepsy and H1N1 vaccine linked! Does this surprise anyone? Not me and here's why. Whenever there's an epidemic/pandemic, there's a rush to a band aid on it that lulls people into a false sense of safety/relief, and in this case it may have been the H1N1 vaccine which may not have been tested/studied long enough to determine the board range side effects.
Unfortunately, not everything is meant for everybody and this is where we mess up. The one-size-fits-all-mentality that has pervaded our society is leading us down the path of destruction. How is it that were able to decipher the human gnome but we haven't progress far enough that we can individualize medicine/treatments for the individual? So here it is now that a vaccine that was purported to prevent the Swine flue has been linked to causing a life-long neurological disorder. I'm heartbroken for the human guinea pigs that now have to live with the consequences.
I try not to be cynical but I can't help but think that this unintended consequence is something that the makers of the vaccine knew about and said nothing because the long-term goal for profit supersedes. Imagine you get X-dollars for the vaccine and then that well runs dry, but with the narcolepsy, the well will never run dry.
These idiots must be republicans, talk about discrimination another attack on woman
you think healthcare is expensive now???
just wait till obama care is in full gear..even with insurance the costs are going to skyrocket..
men and women,,,,hold on to your wallets
Gee, why might this not be a popular product with consumers? Spend the equivalent of two mortgage payments a year throughout much of my life so that if I become demented or otherwise gomertose I can (unless the company decides to drop the product line) enjoy a whole three years of ***-wiping at a decent nursing home before exhausting my benefits and having to give up my family's home and savings so I can stay in a crummy facility and wind up dying of bedsores anyway? How can I pass up such a deal? The older I get, the more sensible my .38 caliber long-term care plan looks.
Hopefully, the government means business and will really do something about affordable long-term-health-care.
@Jane,
Once you own a long-term care policy, the insurance company cannot cancel your policy.
And if you purchase a "partnership policy" that is approved by your state then your assets and home can be protected from Medicaid.
Scott A. Olson