One of the important issues family law lawyers think of in divorce cases is the cost and availability of health insurance for our clients once their marriages end, when their coverage is through their spouse's employer. With pre-existing problems, lower income, and lack of health insurance, they may be unable to pay for decent medical care, or chose between taking medication and paying the mortage.
While COBRA rights may allow coverage for a period of time after divorce, eventually even that will lapse. How to keep insurance longer and what it will cost are things you should discuss with a certified specialist in family law. If you live in Northern San Diego County, consider calling one of the specialists at www.divorceandmediation.com, with offices in Carlsbad, Escondido and Rancho Santa Fe. [COBRA is an acronym or shorthand for legislation that may provide the right to keep your group policy for a limited period after divorce or termination of employment]
The problem is magnified for woman, who may have pre-existing conditions and higher insurance costs even if they can get coverage. In my practice, the wife is far more likely to face this issue than the husband. Options may include buying a policy while you qualify before COBRA expires, seeking employment with benefits, or negotiating a delay in obtaining a divorce so the wife can remain covered longer.
Many insurers justify higher premiums for woman based on studies they are more accident prone, and more likely to break bones or be ill. Although COBRA may give you the right to coverage for some time, cost may be the first limitation.
In a recent lawsuit filed by the City of San Francisco against the California Insurance Commissioner, the city is seeking to narrow the cost for women. State legislation allows insurance companies to discriminate between woman and men. According to the city, the difference can be almost 40%. State law permits the use of gender to determine rates - the legislature, seemingly allowing different premiums based on the customer's gender, has probably made the lawsuit moot. If any change is to come, it will probably require a political solution. This type of case is often designed to bring public attention to a problem, even where the chance of success in court is not high.
Ten states prohibit this discrimination. This is an issue of social policy: Should everyone be entitled to coverage at the same cost irrespective of factors such as geography, gender, education? What about age? Health?
This is not a situation unique to woman and health insurance. If you live in a crowded urban county, should you be charged higher car insurance premiums than someone who lives in a remote, rural county? What if the insurer can show that much higher accident rates occur in urban areas, so the risks are higher? What is urban drivers are more likely to sue after an accident? If the premiums are not adjusted geographically, would the rural driver be subsidizing the urban driver? Is that good public policy, or bad? Some people believe the only justification for differences in car rates is the individual conduct of the insured - is he a safe driver for example?
Should social policy require uniform car insurance rates, or require they be adjusted based on the risk caused by the individual policy holder? Is your answer influenced by where you live or your car is garaged? For health insurance, is your answer different dependent on your gender?
There are no clear cut answers to these questions, but the problems of health insurance may be dealt with on a Federal level, as Congress tries to wrestle with our national medical care and insurance problems. From my standpoint, divorce would be much less traumatic if there were a uniform system with guaranteed coverage irrespective of prior medical history or age - it would be nice if there were a solution to these problems.
