Unrstandg Benefs of Gay Health Insurance › Lbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgenr & Intersex News

Contents:

• UNRSTANDG BENEFS OF GAY HEALTH INSURANCE
• FOR GAY COUPL, OBSTACL TO HEALTH INSURANCE
• GAY COUPL ENTLED TO EQUAL FAY HEALTH COVERAGE, FED SAYS
• SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEGALIZATN LKED TO CREAS SURANCE VERAGE FOR GAY MEN
• GAY MOSW · CY GUI
• THE 5 BEST MOSW GAY CLUBS & BARSGAY CLUBS & BARS MOSW

UNRSTANDG BENEFS OF GAY HEALTH INSURANCE

As a member of the LGBTI+ muny, ’s important to unrstand the benefs of gay health surance and how n protect you and your loved on.

Coverage for same-sex upl and fai: Gay health surance polici e clive language and provi verage for same-sex upl and fai. Legal protectn: Gay health surance polici may also offer legal protectn for LGBTI+ dividuals and upl, cludg verage for legal fe and expens curred as a rult of discrimatn or other legal issu. Coverage for domtic partnerships and civil unns: Many gay health surance polici also provi verage for domtic partnerships and civil unns, which are not regnized by standard health surance polici.

Coverage for specific health ncerns: Gay health surance polici may also provi verage for specific health ncerns that are more mon the LGBTI+ muny, such as HIV/AIDS treatment and mental health re. Image source: Getty Imag2021's Lbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgenr, and Queer (LGBTQ) Pri Month is the first to be officially regnized by a print sce 2016 -- certaly e for celebratn!

FOR GAY COUPL, OBSTACL TO HEALTH INSURANCE

Unmarried gay and lbian upl lookg for domtic partner health re benefs may have a shock this open enrollment season, pecially if they work for small- or medium-size employers. AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTPatient MoneyMay 8, 2009“IT’S not easy beg gay, ” said Mary Jo Hudson, director of the Oh Department of Insurance.

“For the vast majory of gay upl, ” she said, “gettg health surance for a domtic partner is still a challenge.

And some employers lim their domtic partner benefs only to homosexual upl, on the ratnale that heterosexual upl n get married, while most stat gay upl still nnot. "It's a big al, " says Katie Keh, director of rearch at the Trimpa Group, a nsultg firm that works on lbian, gay, bisexual and transgenr issu.

GAY COUPL ENTLED TO EQUAL FAY HEALTH COVERAGE, FED SAYS

Partnered gay men are ls than half as likely (42 percent) as married heterosexual men to get employer-sponsored pennt verage, and partnered lbians have an even slimmer chance (28 percent) of gettg pennt verage pared to married heterosexual women. As a rult of the much lower rat of employer-provid verage, partnered lbians and gay men are more than twice as likely to be unsured as married heterosexuals.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEGALIZATN LKED TO CREAS SURANCE VERAGE FOR GAY MEN

The excln of gay men and women om civil marriage and the failure of domtic partnership benefs to provi surance pary ntribute to unequal accs to health verage, wh the probable rult that more health spendg is phed onto the dividuals and onto the the Patient Protectn and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PL 111-148) mov the Uned Stat toward a health re system of universal verage, employer-sponsored health surance will ntue to be the ma source of health re verage for nonelrly employe and their spo and fai. This article advanc evince that this is the se, and that as a rult, nonmarried pennts of employed gay men and lbians may end up bearg more of the sts of their health re than if they were married or otherwise eligible for full pennt verage. 10 However, whether this latter fdg explas the overall health surance disadvantage by people same-sex upl is date, studi of the extent of the verage disadvantage are generally nstraed bee of the way lbians and gay men are classified wh health surveys.

12 But this yields an plete picture of the gay, lbian, and bisexual populatn bee exclus many nonhabg dividuals. 13 This creat an opportuny to mol health surance verage among all lbians, gay men, and bisexuals, whether or not they are currently a habg relatnship. The problem is that state laws seemg to require employers to offer equal health benefs to lbian and gay employe wh a pennt partner or same-sex spoe often are blocked by the feral Employee Retirement Ine Secury Act (ERISA) of 1974.

If employers are discrimatg agast gay men, lbians, and bisexuals, we would expect a lower likelihood of obtag own or personal employer-sponsored surance this group pared to heterosexuals, after acuntg for tn, skill level, and other relevant dividual characteristics and labor-market factors. In the partnered or married mols, we pared gay and lbian partnered adults wh heterosexual married exclud lbians, gay men, and bisexuals who reported beg married our partnered or married analys. Bee lbians and gay men rarely reported beg married, as opposed to partnered, we anticipate small, but still potentially biasg, effects om this rtrictn.

GAY MOSW · CY GUI

Although we assumed that the great majory of partnered lbians and gay men are same-sex partnerships and married or partnered heterosexuals are different-sex partnerships, this is assumed that greater potential misclassifitn errors exist for bisexuals. For both brevy and clary, we lim our tailed prentatn of predicted probabili and relative risks to parisons between lbians or gay men and heterosexuals. 16Study RultsPopulatn CharacteristicsFifty-one percent of lbians and 38 percent of gay men reported beg a partnered or married relatnship (Exhib 1).

-born cizen808665688364Town/ral rince910119412Works 35 or more hours per week436346686973Works for firm wh more than 100 employe324634364842“Fair” or “poor” health191918181617A greater proportn of heterosexuals (47 percent of women; 40 percent of men), pared to gay men (2 percent) and lbians (17 percent) reported livg wh mor children their hoeholds (Exhib 1).

Mean age was parable for gay men, lbians, and heterosexual men and women, but bisexual men and women tend to be younger.

THE 5 BEST MOSW GAY CLUBS & BARSGAY CLUBS & BARS MOSW

Compared to their heterosexual unterparts, gay men and lbians were more likely to be nonelrly adults who were non-Lato whe, had at least a llege gree and of 300 percent of poverty and above, were terviewed English, were U. -born cizens, and worked for a firm wh more than 100 gay men than heterosexual men rid ral areas and towns (Exhib 1). Across the three sexual-orientatn groups, timat of the characteristics of bisexuals generally fell between the timat for gay men and lbians and for heterosexual dividuals.

73Exhib 3Predicted Probabili and Relative Risk of Insurance Stat Among Gay Men Compared To Heterosexuals, Nonelrly Men Ag 18–64 In California, Average Of Years 2001, 2003, And 2005Entire populatnEmployed populatn. Gays/heterosexuals (PP, %)Gays pared to heterosexuals (RR)Gays/heterosexuals (PP, %)Gays pared to heterosexuals (RR)Gays/heterosexuals (PP, %)Gays pared to heterosexuals (RR)Gays/heterosexuals (PP, %)Gays pared to heterosexuals (RR)Sample size46, 53526, 06331, 10018, 260.

In our mols that clud all mal, we also found no signifint differenc between gay men and heterosexual men the likelihood of obtag pennt surance verage or own employer–sponsored health surance overall surance disadvantage driven by the lower pennt verage rat among lbians and gay men, however, emerg our partnered or married partnered or married women, lbians were more than twice as likely to be unsured as heterosexual women. Legal procs that lim gay upl' accs to marriage n e harmful effects on surance fdgs further dite that havg one's own employer-sponsored health surance and public verage did not fully offset the penalty pennt verage experienced by lbians.

Consequently, we see a higher unsured rate among this group than heterosexual women (Exhib 2) partnered or married men, gay men had a lower likelihood of pennt verage than did heterosexual men. Unlike partnered lbians, who were more likely to have own employer– sponsored health surance pared to heterosexual women, gay men did not differ signifintly om heterosexual men their rat of own employer–sponsored health the employed sample, the likelihood of obtag own-employer verage among lbians was parable to that among heterosexual female workers (Exhib 2).