Health Insurers Agree to End Higher Premiums for Women

By ROBERT PEAR - The New York Times - May 6, 2009
WASHINGTON — Insurance companies offered Tuesday to end the practice of charging higher premiums to women than to men for the same coverage.
Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, made the offer in testifying before the Senate Finance Committee.

It was the latest concession by insurers as Congress drafts legislation to overhaul the $2.5 trillion health care industry.

In November, insurers said they would accept all customers, regardless of illness or disability, if Congress required all Americans to have coverage. In March, insurers offered to stop charging higher premiums to sick people.

Ms. Ignagni said the industry would accept aggressive federal regulation, but would resist creation of a government-run insurance program of the type proposed by President Obama and many Democrats in Congress. The government-sponsored program would compete with private insurers.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, told Ms. Ignagni, “The disparity between women and men in the individual insurance market is just plain wrong, and it has to change.”

She said she agreed the disparities “should be eliminated.”

Mr. Kerry introduced a bill on Tuesday to prohibit insurers from considering sex as a factor in setting premiums for policies in the individual insurance market.

Women are often charged 25 percent to 50 percent more than men for insurance providing identical coverage.

In interviews last fall, insurance executives said they had a sound reason for the different premiums: Women ages 19 to 55 tend to cost more than men of the same age because they typically use more health care, especially in the childbearing years. Moreover, insurers said women were more likely to visit doctors, to get regular checkups, to take prescription medications and to have certain chronic illnesses.

Congress is considering proposals to provide tax credits or subsidies to millions of people with low or moderate incomes to help them buy insurance. Without substantial changes in the insurance market, such assistance would be worth less to women because of the higher premiums.
Read more in the New York Times

Rick Perry's on Community Colleges and Health Insurance

In a sepcial statement to the Bryan College Station Eagle, published Saturday, July 14, 2007
Governor Perry said:

Perry: Our colleges must follow the law

By GOV. RICK PERRY - Special to the Eagle

Community colleges are the backbone of our higher education system in Texas. They provide a community-based way for Texans to get a quality education close to home. To help them succeed in their vital role, I have supported increased funding for community colleges throughout my tenure as governor. In fact, state funding for instruction at these institutions has grown by $121.1 million, or 16.4 percent, in the past 6 years and I have proposed another $86.1 million in incentive performance funding above and beyond what the Legislature provided.

However, just as I have repeatedly supported increased state funds for community colleges, I have also consistently called for community colleges to follow state law by paying their appropriate share of health insurance for their employees. Unfortunately, they have been unwilling to do this.

Unlike larger universities with a statewide reach, community colleges serve the needs of a specific local area. As such, they are empowered to raise taxes from the population they serve, not unlike a local hospital, school or utility district.

These community colleges then pay their employees from either these local taxes (combined with tuition and fees) or state funds which are allocated by the Legislature and collected from all the taxpayers in Texas. State law clearly dictates that any community college employee paid with state funds can have their health insurance paid the same way. However, state law also says that if a community college employee is paid from locally-raised funds, their health insurance must also be paid from that same local source.

I fully support this sensible dividing line between funding sources. If the state pays an instructor's salary, then the state should also fund his or her health benefits. However, I don't support the notion that all Texas taxpayers should cover the health benefits of those local community college employees who are not paid by state funds. This would be akin to the state of Texas paying the health insurance of a local city councilman or a county commissioner.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what has been happening. And this is precisely the reason I vetoed a portion of community college health insurance funding for the 2008-2009 biennium

For years, community colleges have approached the Legislature and, on the advice of their association, insisted the state pay health insurance benefits for employees not paid by the state, but by local funds. Despite the clarity of the law on this matter, community colleges have continually pursued a distorted interpretation by arguing that any employee who is eligible in theory for a state-funded salary is entitled to state-funded health benefits even if they are not actually paid by the state. Their argument clearly runs counter to state law.

I addressed this issue in my 2003 State-of-the-State address, asking community colleges to begin paying their fair share. In 2005, the Texas Legislature, through the Legislative Budget Board, produced an eye-opening report showing that every community college was circumventing the law, shifting millions in local health insurance costs to the state. In their 2005 budget, the Texas Senate reacted to this report by phasing out improper community college health insurance funding and reallocating those funds to the colleges for instruction. I supported this change as a reasonable approach to address the problem. Unfortunately, the Texas House of Representatives did not.

Then, in 2006, the Legislative Budget Board and my office provided detailed, specific instructions to community colleges for requesting state health insurance funding for eligible employees. Unfortunately, the community colleges again refused to follow the Legislature's directives.

When my staff questioned community colleges about this issue at a public budget hearing on Oct. 2, 2006, a representative of the Texas Association of Community Colleges responded that their mission "supersedes" the law as it is written. I wholeheartedly disagree: no community college's mission supersedes state law. During the 2007 legislative session, my staff reminded the community colleges on the specifics of the law. In conversations with their association, my staff implored them to play by the rules set by the Legislature. The association refused.

As governor, I owe it to Texas taxpayers to ensure the law is followed and that taxpayer dollars are spent as the law intends. I will continue to call for increased formula funding for our community colleges because they deserve our support as they educate our future leaders. However, I will also hold them accountable to the spirit and letter of the law. Community colleges are an essential contributor to our state's future success and I remain committed to helping them maintain the highest standards in pursuit of their mission.