Domestic Violence is a "pre-existing condition?" Really?
by Kim PearsonSen. Patty Murray (D-WA) is trying to make sure that the health reform legislation under consideration in Congress will finally ban a practice that is legal in eight states: denying health insurance to victims of domestic violence on the grounds that it constitutes a pre-existing condition. It's something that she has been trying to get done for years, as she explained on CNN today:
:
When I first heard about this, I was as incredulous as Murray was, and I checked it out as well. Here is what I learned.
First, according the White-House sponsored site HealthReform.gov confirms that it is legal in nine states to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence. The SEIU blog names names: Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and the District of Columbia.
Next, University of Dayton Law school student Linda Noll researched the insurance companies' rationale: The basic argument is that insurance companies don't want to insure domestic violence victims because they are more likely to need it:
From the health insurance companies’ perspective, the domestic violence victim has a potentially increased use of medical facilities because of the assaults from their abuser. The insurance companies view the increased use as the increased cost in providing for that individual which would be an increased cost to the consumer or a reduction in coverage as they do with many other conditions.
The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported last month that several big insurance companies have promised to stop denying coverage to domestic violence victims in the past, only to renege:
n 1994, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), now a member of Senate leadership, had his staff survey 16 insurance companies. He found that eight would not write health, life or disability policies for women who have been abused. In 1995, the Boston Globefound that Nationwide, Allstate, State Farm, Aetna, Metropolitan Life, The Equitable Companies, First Colony Life, The Prudential and the Principal Financial Group had all either canceled or denied coverage to women who'd been beaten.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/when-getting-beaten-by-yo_n_286029.html
Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon suspects that health care practitioners might avoid screening for possible domestic violence for fear that noting the questions in a patient's medical records might endanger her coverage. Of course, failing to identify and help abuse victims can endanger their lives.
Back to Senator Murray, who has actually been trying to get a law passed on this issue since 2001. On October 1, she introduced the Security and Financial Empowerment Act (SAFE) with cosponsors Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) . A companion bill was introduced on the House side last January. In addition to the insurance protections, the bill's other benefits include ensuring that someone who loses a job because of the need to escape an abuser can still collect unemployment.
The SEIU urges voters to write their Congressional representatives urging them to ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, including domestic violence. They provide a handy online form as well.
Do you know of anyone who has been denied insurance coverage for this reason? What did they do? Do you support Murray's effort?
Posted In
Related Topics
BlogHer Conferences
- Home
- About Us
- BlogHer Community
- Conferences
- BlogHer Network
- Special Offers
- Contact Us
Follow us on Twitter:
@blogher @bloghersupport @blogherdeals
Become a Facebook Fan
© Copyright 2009 BlogHer | Terms of Service
Comments
My experiences ...
I wrote about this topic and my experiences a couple of weeks ago. It's still so shocking to me that some think this is OK
http://www.punditmom.com/2009/09/soon-just-being-alive-will-be-a-pre-exi...
PunditMom
aka Joanne Bamberger
BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor
Thank you for sharing your experience
Joanne, thank you for sharing your awful ordeal! I am so glad you got out early and safely! I'm also glad that you talked about the White House Council on Women and Girls.
I also think about the victim who is dependent on abusive spouse for health insurance, and who's treatment records will likely end up in the abuser's hands.
Policy makers ought to be thinking about how to create incentives to minimize harm, instead of compounding it.
Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|KimPearson.net|
The fact that it is legal in
The fact that it is legal in the aforementioned states to ban coverage to victims of domestic violence makes me sick.
Insurance companies don't ban coverage to smokers because they are more likely to suffer a plethora of health problems and/or cancer, so why do they think it's okay to deny coverage to victims of abuse?
I'm just shocked. I don't even know what else to say.
Shock summed up my reaction too
Actually, I'd say shocked and angry. Good to hear from you, Dana!
Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|KimPearson.net|
Wow, I was getting ready to
Wow, I was getting ready to write a domestic viokence awareness post when I came across this. I absoultely had no idea this was the case. My mouth is still agape.
cooper
As someone who was failed by the health care
system...
The rippling effects from our current health care system are devastating and often further victimize the individual involved. How do I know? It happened to me. I had no idea of the long term effects of a childhood of abuse and neglect until I got pregnant. I was fortunate that no one knew at the time that the issues during my pregnancy were symptoms of years of violence acted upon my body. It wasn't until a few years later that doctors determined that the issues during pregnancy and my illnesses after were directly related to the abuse I suffered as a child. My health insurance deemed my problems "pre-existing", demanded return of all payments made out for labs, doctor visits, specialist referrals and hospital stays and refused to cover any additional medical expenses for me save a yearly physical, major medical non-related to the pre-existing condition and we had to sign a waiver acknowledging that each medical bill would be reviewed by the insurance company and determined if it was part of my pre-existing condition before payments would be made. If we had not signed the waiver, my husband at the time and my child's insurance would have been cancelled along with mine since we were under a family plan. When we hit the $300K debt mark from our medical bills, we filed for bankruptcy.
Luckily a few years ago I got a job that put me in a strong enough position financially that I could purchase additional health insurance so I could have the necessary surgeries to fix the damage. If that had not happened, I'm not sure where I would be. Once a condition has been deemed "pre-existing" it is very hard to get that label removed even when you switch health insurance providers. So you either continue to pay out-of-pocket or you purchase a lot of additional health insurance and pray it covers most of your medical bills. By the way, this happened while I lived in North Carolina and Ohio.
I support Senator Murray's efforts; however, I wonder how much change can occur and how quickly since she does not seem to have a lot of support. Economically, everyone is suffering including corporations. My fear is that change - when it begins - begins "today" and pre-existing conditions are covered under health insurance moving forward; but how do we remove that label from current health care records? I think Senator Murray is on the right track and I applaud her efforts but I want to hear a reasonable plan to return millions of dollars spent out-of-pocket because of unfair health care policies to individuals forced to purchase additional health care or who have to pay ridiculous medical expenses from their own pockets due to lack of coverage. This plan also has to ensure that these changes won't further bankrupt the economy. Until there is a solid plan that addresses these issues, I don't see a lot of buy-in from the House or the Senate or from the millions who suffer or suffered from domestic abuse and continue suffering under the present legislation.
-jeri
---------------
e.e. cummings once said, "It takes courage to grow up and become who you really are." Please join me on my journey as I redefine my career and life goals at Lifeinflux.
This makes me sick...
Thanks for this post Kim. All I can say is...it makes me sick.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
at Catherine-Morgan.com and Women4Hope
TIME FOR CHANGE
This doesn't shock me I wish to God it did. The way our society has handled the abused has always been to look the other way. I realize that change cannot happen until the abused want it but to deny health care is absurd. Our society will always have abuse if we don't all take responsibilty for it. Change can only happen when we seek it and demand it. It should not be there for the chosen but for all. Health insurance in this country is an atrocity and we should be outraged that they have the power to deny not only the abused but anyone. Your post was good and very needed, I hope it keeps going and brings awareness.
Thank you
Debbie
You're welcome
Thanks for your comment. I share your hope.
Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|KimPearson.net|
Unbelievable!
Is there no end to the injustice in this world? When a woman, or anyone, for that matter, is denied coverage because they are a victim of domestic abuse, it just points out how greedy insurance companies really are. I have said in the past and will continue to say, that what they are talking about in Washington is NOT health CARE reform. It is health INSURANCE reform. Why must we have the middle man invovled in our care? why not just pay the medical bills as they, either out of pocket, or in the form of national health care. When you pay an insurance company, you are invovling a for profit company, that has the power to take your money, then deny payment of claims at their whim.
Read the latest at http://fabgrandma.blogspot.com/
Those who oppose the bill say they agree with
the principle
The opposition argument that I have read says that of course, insurance companies should be required to cover domestic violence victims, but the states ought to issue the mandate. They try to make it a matter of constitutional principle.
Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|KimPearson.net|