The Two X Chromosome Penalty

Women have broken through glass ceilings, they have narrowed the pay inequity gap, taken control of their reproductive health and become empowered in countless ways.

Yet, in the area of healthcare, women still face significant inequities. The one about which is most important to raise to day was reported on by the New York Times, which informed us that where women are concerned they are expected to pay significantly higher health insurance premiums than men. As the WSJ Health Blog stated it:

In a Humana plan with a $2,500 deductible, a 30-year-old woman pays 31 percent more than a man of the same age in some cities; Anthem Blue Cross (part of WellPoint) charges 30-year-old women 49% more than men of the same age for its Blue Access Economy plan in at least one city.

All this for having two X chromosomes? Not exactly. It is also the case that women utilize healthcare services more, not just during the childbearing years, but overall. Ever notice how men put off going to the doctor until their leg is actually falling off? A slight overstatement, but not much. In doing so, they utilize fewer health care resources and thus justify having lower premiums.

Plus as the image below shows, women will always be a part of the red and yellow parts of the healthcare dollar breakdown, but its the utilization of the most expensive services--hospital care, physicians, and drugs that make women a much costlier and riskier patient to insure.

health_care_costs.jpg

So, oddly, because many women are proactive, get regular checkups, and in many cases catch deadly diseases like breast cancer or ovarian cancer early and get treated for it, they are penalized by hiking up their premiums. Good plan, insurers.

No matter what the reason, we all know that it comes down to actuarial tables and pooling of risk and a bottom line. A line under which many women fall. It may be good insurance business, but it's not good ethical practice.

Summer Johnson, PhD

contribute a comment

Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.

what is this?

A 'Nature Top 50' science blog by the editors, staff and friends of The American Journal of Bioethics. Science writes: "To follow the latest twists in ... science stories with social impact, dive into this Web log"

The original story behind this blog

What people are saying about blog.bioethics.net

recently on blog.bioethics.net

Is Hope a Culprit in Cancer Clinical Trials?

A recent study conducted by Emory University School of Medicine found that therapeutic misconception is alive and well in Phase I cancer research. According to... (more)

Gingrich on IVF: Bad for Families, Bad for Bioethics

Scientists, reproductive specialists and andrologists had better prepare. If Newt Gingrich has his way (and wins the Presidency), he will have a whole new world... (more)

Canadians have Bieber Fever...For Organ Donation

Yes, it's true. Bieber Fever has spread far and wide. But it isn't just tweens who are following the pop star, Justin Bieber's, every move.... (more)

Caplan: Say No to Sterilization, Forced Abortion

Art Caplan discusses a troubling case regarding a 32-year-old pregnant woman known as "Mary Moe" who is pregnant for the third time and who suffers... (more)

Rallying Around Amelia: A Debate on Disability

The blogosphere and the airwaves are filled with indignation regarding what has happened to Amelia Rivera, a three year old who has a rare genetic... (more)

this blog's feed

  • Subscribe
    • XML
    • Google Reader or Homepage
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • Add to My AOL
    • Convert RSS to PDF
    • Add to Technorati Favorites!
    • Add to your phone
    • Get RSS Buttons

info

archives

tags