Healthy Living

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Why are health insurance companies discriminating against sexual assault survivors?

I've heard it a thousand times: Sexism no longer exists in this country.

As a college instructor, I heard it. Talking with other moms at playgroup, I've heard it. At conferences and in meetings and on television and during radio talk shows, I've heard it. It pains me to type the words. Still, I know that many of you will gasp or laugh to read that there are people who believe women no longer face discrimination. I also know that many of you will nod your head in agreement.

One of the reasons I believe many people think that sexism is obsolete is because they do not recognize or feel its impact in their personal lives. The thing about oppression of any kind, however, is that it doesn't just infiltrate our homes and relationships. It also is at work in the systems set in place in our society -- in government, in the workplace, in media, in education.

While someone might have a equitable relationship with a partner or have grown up with a dad who participates just as much as their mother, they may not sexism's existence as much as a woman who grew up with very different expectations than her male siblings. Sadly, statistics reveal that sexism is very much alive systematically -- looking at the percentage of women in the sciences and how much less women earn for doing comparable work to men are just two examples that discrimination is still breeding.

At a time when health care is being carefully scrutinized and hotly debated, it is no surprise that peeling back the layers of insurance coverage, accessibility, and affordability reveals many accounts of sexism in action.

In calling on readers to provide anecdotes and information about their experiences with insurance companies, the Huffington Post Investigative Fund is hoping to add more data to the current health care debate. Because health insurance companies are not required to publicly divulge how many claims are denied and why, the Investigative Fund is compiling stories that may have otherwise been unheard.

Even if you have not seen evidence of sexism in your home or even in your job, I think you will be as startled and angered by the stories about sexual assault victims who have been denied insurance coverage for simply getting treatment following their attack.

Perhaps the most maddening is the story of Christina Turner, a 45-year-old woman who was allegedly drugged. sexually assaulted while she was unconscious, and left roadside by two men. As a preventative measure, her doctor prescribed a month's worth of anti-AIDS medication. Months later, when the rape survivor lost her insurance and applied for a new plan, her medical records were reviewed and she was denied coverage because she'd taken HIV medication. Although Turner did not develop HIV and explained the attack to the insurance company, she was told to reapply in three years if she remained free from the virus.

Turner, who ironically worked in the insurance field, went without insurance for three years and says she knows she will be penalized for the rest of her life for taking those precautionary drugs.

The anecdotes go on and on and span the treatments many consider imperative for people who have been sexually assaulted to be safe, healthy, and even to report the crime. Reports of being denied coverage for rape kit exams, follow-up gynecological exams, and counseling show a maddening discrimination against people (and sexual assaults are overwhelmingly committed against women) who have been raped.

The Investigative Fund reports that insurers have cited post-traumatic stress disorder, previous assaults, and questionable medical necessity for denying coverage to women (read more anecdotes and reactions here). This is problematic on several levels. First, the intense questioning of sexual assault survivors (which you might assume to be reserved for police reports or legal proceedings) and billing for rape kit exams (which is standard procedure when a someone who is assaulted goes to an ER or doctor's office following an assault), re-victimizes the victim.

"For someone who has been traumatized, it can feel like another trauma, and it makes the therapy less effective," said New Jersey psychologist Jeffrey Axelbank.

That a woman who has been assaulted would want or even need counseling is not unfounded. Women who have been sexually assaulted are three times more likely to suffer from depression. And that a victim would be told her coverage has been denied because she has post-traumatic stress disorder is all the more ridiculous considering that women who have been assaulted are six times more likely to suffer from PTSD.

The second issue with this treatment is that is discourages people who have been assaulted from taking precautionary medications, getting STD and other testing, and even from reporting the crime to the authorities. The number of people who have been sexually assaulted who report it to the police is up 30% since 1993, and still is strikingly low -- only 40% make official reports.

Third, we already know that women aged 19 to 55 pay more for health insurance than men the same age. Since women in their early 20s are the group at highest risk for being sexually assaulted, denying coverage at this time of life seems to literally and figuratively add insult to injury. I can only imagine how infuriating it must be to pay more for a plan that does not cover your treatment in the most critical hour.

These procedures and treatments are not controversial or experimental or frivolous. Making sure a woman doesn't have HIV or any other STD as a result of an attack, collecting evidence, and providing therapy seem like common-sense provisions for care. Although insurance providers might claim cost is an issue, immediate and preventative care seems like it would be a lot less expensive than covering long-term or chronic issues that result from lack of care.

Still, you may not have witnessed or worried about the brand of sexism that these assault victims have felt from their health insurance companies. But since 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime (and 1 in 33 men), the chances are high that you or a woman you know has already been personally impacted. In the time it has taken you to read this post, two women -- that we know about -- have been assaulted.

And if she -- or you -- have assumed your health benefits will cover sessions with a therapist or that you won't be denied for opting for potentially life-saving medication, you might see how this particular system could harshly, horrifically discriminate against you.

As hard as it is to hear, I think we all need to speak up and hear more anecdotes about how insurance companies have denied or are denying coverage to women who have been sexually assaulted. If we get loud enough, perhaps the sound of "DENIED" sliding through a printer on a claim will be drowned out, or even halted.

Are health insurance companies discriminating against women? Is this fair play or are insurers pushing women out of plans?

What are your thoughts about health insurance companies denying coverage to women who have been sexually assaulted?



Read more:

[photo credit: Getty Images]
Syndication:

From the Community…

Comments 1-10 of 73
  • ~Sil's Avatar
    Posted by ~Sil Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:38am PDT

    It is time SPAM was banned from Yahoo Comments! Not only is it offensive, the grammar leaves a lot to be desired.

    ................ I Am An English Teacher! .....................

    These so-called "Health Insurance Companies" need Mandatory ETHICS COUNSELING!!! They have been practicing medicine without a license since the Reagan years. It's time to put a stop to it. If the Congress is too lily-livered to put a stop to it, I suggest a National Referendum.

    Report Abuse
  • Katie B's Avatar
    Posted by Katie B Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:54am PDT

    I don't think this has anything to do with being raped as much as it does with the precieved notion that a patient might have a pre-existing condition....

    I don't see how this situation (as presented) would be any different for a Peramedic that was spit in the face by a hostile person or a police officer that got stuck with a needle the perpetrator had in his pocket and had to take the drugs as well...

    I wonder if insurance companies exclude these people as well for the same reason.... if so, then the company is not bias based on gender, in my opinion.... but if not, then I can see the reasoning and the conclusion as being accurate.

    Can we find out if there is a difference before we make conclusions that insurance companies are being sexist? Because the only way to alledge is if there is a clear bias standing... and not based on the word of one situation.

    Report Abuse
  • Katie B's Avatar
    Posted by Katie B Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:45am PDT

    Even though I may not like it... I understand why women pay more for insurance... we are more likely to become pregnant than men are (huh, who woulda thought) and that's not cheap... we are also more likely to go to the doctor (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/06/09/hm.mens.doctors/index.html) by 25%, thus when something happens we are more apt to deal with it when we need to.

    Now, I don't know if they specifically 'weed out' or 'pick on' women that have been sexually assualted (and if this is true than it is something that most definitely needs to be fixed)... but I would like to see some statistics on this and some official findings, not anecdotes... because there is more likely more to the story...

    Why was she dropped from her insurance, did she get a new job? Was she at the same job? Was it because she was sexually assualted? I just have too many questions to blame one side or the other without knowing the whole story and/or relying on an anecdote or two... it seems too emotional not very rational... if this is something that happens frequently, than why hasn't/isn't something being done before now?

    Report Abuse
  • Donna's Avatar
    Posted by Donna Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:55am PDT

    I am a rape survivor and am gratful that I was able to get help. What can we do to change this? If there is anything I can do to help please contact me via email

    donnalynette@hotmail.com

    Report Abuse
  • TrevorW's Avatar
    Posted by TrevorW Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:59am PDT

    -note- I appologize in advance for grammar and spelling for this was typed through my phone with no chance for proofing.

    Through current unrestricted restraints insurance companies are given the power to abuse. Making it tougher, by restricting their abilities to abuse the industry will only delay the abuse as they find a loop hole.

    Solution: Governing body pass measures to stop or restrict abuse while monitoring insurance companies efforts to manuver around the legislature and pass new legislature repairing any leak in the old.

    Problems (obsticles impeding and/or delaying the above):

    Just to list a few

    *lobbyist's- It is difficult to speed effective legislature through when there will always be a few too many in power that give into clever and cunning lobbyist's that are masterminds at repackaging the truth to deliver a false/distorted perception of it. Keep in mind that our elected officials are not quick to give into the obvious bountiful gifts that lobbyist's have in their arsenol of deception to the public, but are likely to be deceived by a lobbyist's tricks at repackaging the truth. If they can't get to the wise honest officials directly they will blast the public with the repackaged form of the truth envoking a misguided response from the majority whom don't have the facts accessible to their finger tips, and/or who are just to lazy to uncover the facts, and/or whom work to much to uncover the facts, and/or it is just to hard to uncover the real true facts because their are just so many distorted versions floating around that were created by lobbyist's and distributed through the many channels of distribution strategically in place for just such occurances (this last one could also fall under the first).

    *I cannot continue writing this on my small touch screen:)

    In ending after skipping much (sorry) a good rule of thumb is to start out with an opinion that is opposite commercials and other forms of paid advertising and then develop your true opinion from that point forward developed from looking at ALL of the underlying FACTS like many that are listed in this article. Most importantly ALWAYS be skeptical of information that derails you from an opinion that is helping a majority of those that stand around you, that are on the same block, that are in the same city, that are in the same country, and that are on the same planet.

    *

    Report Abuse
  • risatrix's Avatar
    Posted by risatrix Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:26am PDT

    Well, making me pay more for the "fact" that I "might become pregnant" when I'm never going to have children is sexist. And somehow, I don't think I'd get a discount if I got my tubes tied as a preventative measure. As the author says, sometimes sexism only becomes apparent when it's something that applies to you; in this case it's something that doesn't apply to me.

    And yes, treating the consequences of rape as a "pre-existing condition" is bound to be sexist given that the majority of victims are going to be women.

    Report Abuse
  • Trini's Avatar
    Posted by Trini Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:38am PDT

    This might be the ONLY TIME I agree with Katie B...

    Report Abuse
  • V-for-V-a-l-i-a-n-T™'s Avatar
    Posted by V-for-V-a-l-i-a-n-T™ Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:47am PDT

    "Why are health insurance companies discriminating against sexual assault survivors?"--Um, I'm gonna take a stab in the dark here and maybe guess it's because..........THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANYTHING other than PROFIT?

    Rape Survivors, People without Health Insurance, Handicapped, etc. it DOES NOT MATTER, they don't give a sh*t!!!

    (which is what we liberals have been saying all along)

    Report Abuse
  • guy,man's Avatar
    Posted by guy,man Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:14am PDT

    I was raped when I was a child,repeatedly by a family member,may he rot in hell.

    When I told ,I was laughed at, nobody beleaved it. because i was a boy. later i learned (1 out of every 8 boys) is sexually

    assaulted,the perpatrators are always heterosexual men.

    CPS (child protective servises)knows this.

    The number of men who get raped is a lowball figure in this artical i would bet becuase most men would never tell anyway, your number is probably those who go so far as to report it & TRY to file charges. Nobody male or female should ever have to go through the added struggle of having to put up with the cheap ass attitude of some crap insurance agency, who only see the cost of treatement as money out of thier pockets.

    These are all more reasons we are trying to change health care in this country STUPID Sarah Palin says there will be death pannels, HONEY THERE ARE DEATH PANNLES NOW, YOU STUPID BREEDER!!!! thats part of what we are trying to put a stop to.

    Oh, and if your son comes to you and says they have been sexually assaulted ,beleave him.

    Report Abuse
  • Lizbeth's Avatar
    Posted by Lizbeth Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:20am PDT

    Insurance companies are for-profit industries in a Captialist/Patriarchal society; therin lies the problem. Men have been profitting from women since the begining of time.

    It would be amazing if we could elevate ourselves to some modern concept of civilization.

    So, a good rule of thumb is...be rich and be a white man, and if you can't be either of those things...be creative.

    Report Abuse
Comments 1-10 of 73

leave your comment

You must sign in to post a comment

Sign In for personalized information

New User? Sign Up

Updates Chatter on Shine…

Health Byte

Who doesn't want to look hot at all those holiday parties? ExerciseTV shares how to get in skinny jeans-shape -- and quickly!