Maternity Coverage Sought For Young Women On Parent's Plan

Young women covered by a parent's health insurance don't necessarily get maternity coverage. The National Women's Law Center thinks it may have found a way to get them benefits. The group has filed sex discrimination complaints against five large publicly funded employers, using a little-noticed provision of the Affordable Care Act that bars discrimination in health benefits on the basis of gender.

The provision, Section 1557, prohibits discrimination "in any health program or activity" that receives any sort of federal funding or "financial assistance." The complaints, filed with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights, attempt to address a recently noticed glitch in coverage policy: While employers are generally required to provide maternity benefits to spouses of their employees, they are not generally required to extend those same benefits to dependents.

That has not been a big issue before, but it has become more of one since the Affordable Care Act allowed young adults up to age 26 to remain covered on their parents' health plans. Under the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, employer-provided health insurance generally must cover maternity benefits for spouses. But that law has never been interpreted to cover dependents.

It wasn't hard to figure out why lack of coverage for dependents wouldn't have been considered discriminatory, says Sharon Levin, director of federal women's reproductive health policy for the NWLC.

In the case of spouses, "it was assumed that [male] spouses of female employees would be getting all their needs covered, but [female] spouses of the male employees would not be getting their needs covered" if maternity benefits were excluded, said Levin. Thus, not offering maternity care was deemed discriminatory. (Abortion services were mostly excluded under the law, owing to political controversy.)

But for dependents, says Levin, "male and female employees are getting the same coverage because their children, all of their daughters, are not getting pregnancy coverage. So there's no difference in how the male and female employee is being treated."

In fact, lack of pregnancy coverage for dependents is widespread. One estimate is that 70 percent of firms that "self-insure" for health benefits don't provide it. Yet the need is not insignificant. Nearly 3 million teenagers and young women got pregnant in 2008, according to the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But the nondiscrimination language in the health law provides a potential remedy, at least for companies that receive some federal funding, Levin said. "We were always aware that [section] 1557 would apply to this situation, but we wanted to make sure that we had all our ducks in a row to file the complaints before we started talking about it."

Levin said the group chose the targets of its complaints to reflect regional representation and different industries "and to make it clear that it's a systemic issue" rather than just a few problem employers.

The subjects of the complaints are Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus Ohio; Beacon Health System in South Bend, Ind.; Auburn University in Auburn, Ala.; Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash.; and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, in Harrisburg, Pa.

View the original article here

Lower Health Insurance Coverage for Young Retirees

The Employer Benefit Research Institute has released latest evidences which show the reality of retiree health benefits and its present state. Many workers still dream about early retirement but it is not that employers also share the same. Employees are not getting efficient benefit on early retirement and it reveals about research work.

The results revealed on such issued are mixed of bad and worst news. According to reports revealed by a non profit company in Washington D.C. only 17.7% of employees worked for a private-sector business in 2010 that offered health insurance (http://www.privatehealthinsurance247.co.uk/) coverage to early retirees. The report is showing downturn in the sector with almost 29% in 1997. In the same vein, in 2010 15.9% of employees were engaged in a business that offered health coverage to Medicare-eligible retirees, which was recorded as 25.4% in 1997.

What is the worse news?

There are very few companies are still offering retiree health benefits and such companies are raising cost of premiums with reduced coverage and tough eligibility criteria. When employers were asked about the steps they might take in 2013 with regard to retiree health benefits then 43% of surveyed employers who offered such benefits replied that very likely they will increase retirees’ portion of premiums and 35% said they are somewhat likely to increase it. Only 21% of surveyed employers said they are very likely to increase cost sharing in 2013, and 32% said they are somewhat likely to do so.

EBRI’s findings released that workers are accepting the modern change in retiree health benefit trend and any cause for optimism in EBRI’s findings are about their prospects. Almost half of workers (45%) in 1997 workers expected retiree health benefits, while only 27% of early retirees were offered health benefits and 20% of Medicare-eligible retirees actually had such coverage. The figures have changed dramatically in 2010; about 32% workers were expecting retiree health benefits while just 25% of early retirees and 16% of Medicare-eligible retirees actually had benefits.

Past records have strengthened the new figures in 2012. The availability of such exchanges were not surprising in 2012 where Health survey reports by Towers Watson/National Business group has revealed that many employers to exit sponsorship of retiree medical insurance programs.

View the original article here

Universal Health Coverage Plan Receive UN Votes

It is expected that UN generally assembly vote will go in favor of universal health coverage resolution on Wednesday. It reflects on growing international consensus on necessity of reasonable healthcare access. UK resolutions call on its members to verify current health system. Present health system avoids direct payment at the time of delivery and also involves a process risky for population to avoid catastrophic health care spending.

UK and U.S. backed up the supporters of resolution. They have said that UN vote is a forward step towards global health coverage in later 2015. It is here to note that the US president Barak Obama forced his bitterly health care reform bill through Congress in 2010. It brings Americans near to the universal health coverage.

It has been concluded by health experts that universal health care idea can improve the health situations globally. The idea is gaining ground in recent years. The report of “WHO” on Health systems financing has also mentioned about the universal health care idea in its publication of 2010 and this publication has boost up the idea globally. It led to 60 middle and low income countries requesting advice and technical assistance to move towards universal health insurance (http://www.privatehealthinsurance247.co.uk/) coverage.

Margaret Chan the director general of WHO has campaigned for global health care. She strongly recommends the plan and in support she has also gave her statement in Lancet Magazine. She has said that the plan is most powerful way to unify single concept of public health care. It enables every person to receive health care attention irrespective of whether you are women or whether you belong to any class or whether you are poor.

Health experts have said that 40% of world population has some sort of risk pooled health plans, nearly 300,000 women die due to pregnancy complications and 7 million children die from preventable causes.

View the original article here