Health Care Costs Are Greater For Women In Most States

Women pay $1 billion more each year in individual health insurance costs even though they tend take better care of their health than men, according to a new report released on Monday by the National Women's Law Center.

What does that add up to in real life? Take a 40-year-old woman who does not smoke in Louisville, KY. She pays $196 a month, compared to the $128 a male smoker pays for the very same coverage with HumanaOne, according to data cited by the New York Times.

Our Kentucky woman is not alone. Over half of the best-selling individual plans charge non-smoking women more than their cigarette-puffing male counterparts, according to the Law Center report. Women who are overweight also pay more than men who are equally overweight, according to health insurance website eHealthInsurance.com.

The price discrepancy for women underscores an ongoing gender gap for health coverage in the United States. In the vast majority states, insurance companies can charge women more than men for the same coverage because of what is called a "gender rating."

It's akin to charging women extra for having lady parts.

The issue flared up earlier this month after a partisan fracas broke out on Capital Hill over who should foot the bill--insurers or employers--for hormonally based medications like The Pill, which can be used as contraception as well as to treat medical conditions, like ovarian cysts.

Under President Obama's health care reform, the Affordable Care Act, some states have already eliminated the gender rating for individuals. Health insurance companies in California, New York and at least 10 other states have already banned the use of the gender rating. By law, all health insurance providers must stop pricing women differently starting in 2014--but so far in the vast majority of states, insurance providers are still taking a little extra from their female policy holders. Other laws generally prohibit price discrepancy in group plans offered by large employers.

More than 7.5 million women buy their own health insurance, the Law Center cited. Insurance companies have defended the higher premiums saying that women cost them more because they use more health services than men: They go to the doctor regularly, get frequent check ups and have more prescriptions. In the individual insurance market, where these price differences occur, maternity care coverage is an added charge and does not drive the gap in cost, according to the New York Times.

So for now, it still pays for women to shop around for health insurance. The government's healthcare website provides a comparison and locator tool. Other independent resources to check out health care costs include Consumer Cost Lookup and eHealthInsurance.com.

From our partners

• How To Get Away With Being Bad At Your Job - The Billfold
• The Sharing Economy - LearnVest
• Uninsured: How To Get Health Care Without Insurance - The Billfold

Comments

[osonowigetit]

03:16 PM on 06/27/2012

Wpmen use more health care services then men and should pay more. Men pay more auto premiums then women. It seems that this is logical.

[colamonkey]

09:22 AM on 03/24/2012

Women pay more for health insurance AND get paid less. Any wonder we can't get ahead?

[tntmgmt]

01:28 AM on 03/22/2012

I noticed women's shoes cost more too.

[Lidia Monroe]

11:08 PM on 03/20/2012

Women are more conscientious of their health and more likely to go see the doctor - which adds up to more expenses. Not to mention, pregnancy.

[angie1234]

11:58 PM on 05/04/2012

In the long run, going to see the doctor more often can save money by preventing long-term and more serious diseases that really cost a lot of money. ($100 for a doctor's visit which the insurance companies negotiate to pay $20 vs the thousands upon thousands of dollars that serious illnesses can rack up). Also, not every woman decides to have children. Why should a woman pay higher premiums if she has no desire to ever become pregnant?

[MurielMay12]

11:43 AM on 03/20/2012

Being a woman is the best and the worst.
1) R U A MULTITASKER ???? 2). Can you say DE REG U LATION Financial Freedom is for everyone in America
visit my site http://www.MULTITASKER.ENERGY526.COM WATCH INFORMERCIAL AND request more information act now!!!

[Freedomaphile]

11:21 AM on 03/20/2012

Here in Florida we are paying $1200 a month for my soon to be 65 year old non-smoking wife.

Medicare will be a great financial relief for us.

[CoastalNC]

11:07 AM on 03/20/2012

Over the past 6 years my husband went to a doctor 2 or 3 times a WEEK. I go once a year.....tell me that I cost the insurance company more and I'll point out that is a lie. I'm sure I am not the only one and I would think that it would all average out when you start adding thousands of people.

[KarenBoBaren86]

07:19 PM on 03/20/2012

You're obviously an exception. The whole point of the article is that once you average it out, women are paying more. Reading comprehension fail.

[CoastalNC]

08:22 AM on 03/21/2012

My point is that not all women go more than all men....I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[ResidentPragmatist]

05:40 PM on 03/23/2012

You're right, Karen. You did have a reading comprehension fail. Coastal implied that not all women go to the doc (hence, cost the ins. co. more money) more than all men, so if you take the number of women who go less often and average it out w/ the number of women who do go more often than men, it should average out and thus, not cost the women more in healthcare costs. Perhaps you should take yourself a good logic course before you comment on an incorrect inference.

[SMBrown2]

10:16 AM on 03/20/2012

I think it is outrageous that insurance companies can charge women more money just because they consume more health care services. That's like saying you get what you pay for! It is unconscionable in today's socialist America. Fight back people!

[SIMPLICIMUSS]

10:47 AM on 03/20/2012

I think back when my oldest daughter started driving. She reminded me abit of those old WWll movies , with Robert Taylor in the cockpit of a Curtis P-40. On the side of the canopy were little " Rising Suns ", as a sign of his prowess. My daughter had something similiar on her drivers side door, liitle cars, telephone poles, tractors. cows etc. Always wondered why her insurance rates were so much higher than my sons ???

[HoneyBQuick]

09:51 AM on 03/20/2012

If we have to pay more to possess the almighty uterus, then men should have to pay for access to the almighty uterus. Funny that they were quick to outlaw THAT, though...

And I'm just now re-thinking the laws against prostitution. It's not about indecency or the decline of the moral fabric of our country. It's about men being afraid women would make them pay for it EVERY TIME.

I'm warning all of you men, now: You're either with us or against us. And if you're against us, may your god help you because hell hath no fury...

[Markyhwh]

07:25 PM on 03/29/2013

We do pay more for acccess. We have ZERO control over reproduction other then abstinence and/or the not so trustworthy (and pleasure stifling) condom. Until of course the male pill comes out and then God Help You. Roe V Wade was based on the premise that women should not be forced into indentured servitude to have and bear and care for a child if htey were not emotionally or financially or physically prepared to do so. Yet men can be forced into eighteen years of financial and emotional servitude regardless. So guess what? More rights, more responsiblity.

Guess what too? Men have been 'with you' for 1/2 a century modifying laws and social norms and expectations and in return been locked into the same gender roles and expectations by a group of pepole unwilling to even extend 1/10th of the courtesy to either understand or acquisese to the challenges, needs, costs and inequities of being a man. Clearly the last sentence will send you into a froth since as a woman you haven't learned to even acknowledge the possibility let alone the reality.

[Devontate]

09:09 AM on 03/20/2012

Insurance companies don't consider their customers "people." All they see in their customers is potential illness, which translates to profit loss.

[Markyhwh]

07:30 PM on 03/29/2013

Yes. Rightly so. That is when insurance works as it should. Populations with clearly understood probabilties of contracting specific diseases resulting in specific costs. That determines how much they charge. Then it works. When it doesn't work is when people like you whine about not being considered 'people' and make then de-rail the very model that works and NOT charge yoy based on the above. Because then it becomes more expesive for eveyrone so healthy people drop out and the actuarial models which enable the entire concept fall apart since even more of the population is unhealthy. So the costs go up and more people drop out. Then they can't even estimate their costs because they aren't allowed to based their fees on estimates so they need to have a managed care layer on top of everything, driving up costs and away healthy people again. Then a President comes in and forces all the people who left the rigged game you call 'considering the people' back in .

[Justtheobvious]

09:05 AM on 03/20/2012

The formulas insurance companies use are meant to keep their profits rolling in.They are in no way meant to be fair. Women live on average far longer than men and that probably has a lot to do with it. Men die off quickly and use less medical care toward the expensive end years.

Ban insurance companies. They are nothing but gambling institutions anyways. You would be far better off taking out a loan and paying it if/when you need it. Hospitols would have to lower prices because there would be no insurance company writing a blank check.

[Schoolgirl666]

09:00 AM on 03/20/2012

Women practice preventative medicine....that's why they have annual physicals. In the long run it is cheaper for insurance companies, but they will use any excuse to raise premiums.

[Andrew851]

09:39 AM on 03/20/2012

Wrong. Insurance companies aren't stupid, they know who is costing them more.

[Julie Crudele]

01:12 PM on 03/20/2012

Actually, that's right, but insurance companies don't like supporting preventative care because people switch insurance companies every 5-10 years. They don't want to pay to keep a client healthy in the long run because they likely won't have to pay for that client's care in the long run. Why pay money now to prevent a different insurance company from having to pay money later? (That's the company's view, not mine.)

[Computer Geek]

08:57 AM on 03/20/2012

The Republican solution: women should change their gender (is that sarcastic enough?).

[highercalling]

08:32 AM on 03/20/2012

It's not at all clear that Republicans have thought this through. Polls show strong support from the American mainstream not only for contraception but also for Obama's coverage policy, suggesting this is an election-year culture war fight the GOP is likely to lose. The fact that Republicans are already divided on the issue only reinforces doubts about the wisdom of the party's strategy.

It's unlikely to happen, but the smart move would be for Republicans to quietly shift their attention elsewhere. If Democrats are lucky, the GOP will ignore this and continue its war on contraception.

[Peguy]

08:00 AM on 03/20/2012

Insurance companies say women "cost them more"... I'd like to see the facts and figures on that, not just what they "say".

[ILoveGreatDanes]

08:13 AM on 03/20/2012

That makes perfect sense to me. It's really expensive for an insurance company to pay for each prenatal visit, ultrasound, and delivery of every baby she has, and many women have more than one child. I don't think it's a fair policy, either, but there's no doubt women cost more money. I'm even a woman, myself. Also, they have to pay for breast, uterine, and cervical cancer treatment, and I think those combined are more frequently occurring cancers than prostate.

[Autismmomx4]

08:38 AM on 03/20/2012

Except this article stated that these premimums did not include maternity coverage, which is extra.

[water444]

08:45 AM on 03/20/2012

"Maternity care coverage is an added charge and does not drive the gap in cost..." On most health insurance policies women are not covered for any pregnancy-related care unless they have purchased that coverage at an additional cost. In addition, if you get pregnant and don't already have that coverage, it's then a pre-existing condition and you can't get coverage.