Actuarial Tables Not Built for Sexism

Making a rare appearance on a policy issue, first lady Michelle Obama weighed in on health care the other day. She said she viewed health reform as a women’s rights issue, saying “the status quo is just unacceptable.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made a similar pitch, arguing that health insurance discriminates against women, especially by charging women more for insurance coverage than men are charged.

And yet women are far more likely to be covered by health insurance than men are. The rate of non-insurance for men is 21.8 percent, compared with 17.6 percent for women, according to the Census Bureau. Women live five years longer than men do on average - life expectancy of 75.2 years for men and 80.4 years for women. For black men and women, the difference is even greater: seven years. Women go to the doctor far more frequently than men do; men consume only 40.8 percent of all physician visits.

Mrs. Obama and Speaker Pelosi might want to think twice before trying to equalize the health care status of men and women.

Now, it is true that in the individual health insurance market women are charged higher premiums than men pay. But it is also true that women are charged far less for auto insurance and life insurance. This is neither surprising nor unfair. Women are more likely to see a doctor and consume other health services, but men are more likely to be in an auto accident and die younger.

The difference in premiums reflects the difference in risks between the genders.

If we abolish gender-based rates for health insurance, shouldn’t we also abolish them for life and auto? Women may not appreciate that move, either. After all, very few of us pay our own premiums for health insurance, but almost all pay their own premiums for life and auto.

Whatever other advantages reforming health care might have, one thing is certain: It is not a women’s rights issue.