Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WOMEN AND HEALTH REFORM: THE MARRIAGE PROBLEM.
While men are more likely than women to be uninsured, women's health coverage is more volatile. Why? Because only 38 percent of women have health coverage through their own job, compared to 50 percent of men. That means women are about twice as likely as men to depend on a spouse or partner's employer-provided health plan. The negative outcomes here are pretty obvious: For an American woman, the end of a romantic relationship is often not just emotionally tumultuous but medically tumultuous as well, for both herself and her children.
A study in the journal Health Services Research concluded that a husband's transition from employer-based coverage to Medicare at age 65 can be especially problematic for his younger wife or partner. She must give up her dependent coverage before she herself is eligible for Medicare. Women who experience such disruptions in health care "had a greater probability of experiencing a change in usual clinic/provider (71 percent), delaying filling or taking fewer medications than prescribed because of cost (75 percent), going to the emergency room (52 percent), and had lower average mental health scores than women who did not experience an insurance disruption," the authors write.
So what does this mean for health reform? The House and Senate bills would represent some progress for dependent women. Instead of being left on the open market if they're kicked off a partner's health plan, they could participate in the health insurance exchanges, which are supposed to lower coverage costs through increased competition, including competition with any eventual public health plan. In addition, the expansion of Medicaid coverage to 133 or 150 percent of poverty would cover many more women.
But if the health insurance exchanges end up being weak, and thus bad at bringing down costs, women will remain seriously disadvantaged by a system tethered to employment. To solve the "marriage problem" for women's health care, the exchanges must be robust, and there must be significant subsidies to help poor and middle-class individuals afford an insurance plan.
--Dana Goldstein
More posts in the "Women and Health Reform" series:
--What Will Health Reform Mean for Reproductive Rights?
--Interview with NARAL Prez Nancy Keenan on Abortion and Health Reform
COMMENTS (6)
I've often wondered why women haven't advocated for themselves when it comes to "medical care delivered" via the expansion of the VA's medical and hospital systemic.
Here at the Chican Veterans Organization, we have advocated and supported the expansion of the VA's medical and hospital systemic. And all done for a variety of reasons including a cost savings approximating 40% and with not employer strings attached.
Jaango
Posted by: Jaango | July 8, 2009 11:24 AM
It's particularly important for undocumented Women, Women between the ages of 18-30 who can afford but don't elect to get health insurance, Women who make over $75k per year but don't want to purchase insurance and women who have insurance but tell people who take these "statistics" that they don't have insurance.
Posted by: davidscott | July 9, 2009 2:57 PM
In California, a previous C-section birth counts as a preexisting condition that will cause insurance companies to decline you for individual health insurance, no matter what your household income may be.
Posted by: elfling | July 9, 2009 3:38 PM
What if the woman had a C-section in her native Mexico and comes into california without documents? In that scenario, as one of the 45-50 million uninusred Americans, will this woman be covered under the new free federal health program?
Posted by: davidscott | July 9, 2009 3:52 PM
Also - women who are self-employed or not covered through an employer's group plan for some other reason, might have a harder time obtaining individual health insurance.
Many insurers discriminate against women, especially those of childbearing age. Simply being a woman can be a "pre-existing condition!" For example, my husband and I are both self-employed, and I was rejected by BCBS for a very minor health problem (sports injury) that had been resolved by taking Advil and resting - at no cost to my insurance other than a few doctor visits. My husband, who has had many sports injuries, has seen the chiropractor regularly, is five years older than me and and has an ongoing health issue that requires that he take prescription medication daily, was accepted by the same insurer. I'll never believe that they were not simply looking for a reason to reject me because I'm a woman of childbearing age.
Being forced to either go uninsured or get an individual plan, which carries the risk of rescission should you ever become ill and actually need to use the insurance, is bad enough because you can be rejected for a pre-existing condition. But if you're female, you could have an even worse time securing such a crap policy.
Posted by: SalliePie | July 9, 2009 3:52 PM
This is to "david." What on earth are you talking about?
Just for starters, there is no new "free federal health program." That would be called single payer, and your buddy Max Baucus has told us that is off the table. So, no need to get het up over the idea that a woman born in Mexico might get health care here!
Maybe you should go educate yourself about what is being proposed and come back when you can comment on that.
Posted by: SalliePie | July 9, 2009 3:57 PM