The effects of unequal access to health insurance for same-sex couples in California

Health Affairs

Volumn 29, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1539-1548

  Ponce, Ninez A ^a,b   Cochran, Susan D ^a,b   Pizer, Jennifer C ^c   Mays, Vickie M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DISPARITY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HETEROSEXUALITY; HOMOSEXUALITY; HUMAN; LAW; LESBIAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALE HOMOSEXUAL; MARRIAGE; PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE; THEORETICAL STUDY; UNITED STATES;

CALIFORNIA; ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION; FEMALE; HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS, EMPLOYEE; HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES; HOMOSEXUALITY, FEMALE; HOMOSEXUALITY, MALE; HUMANS; MALE; MARRIAGE;

EID: 77958181609     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0583     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. In re Marriage Cases. 43 Cal. 4th 757, 805-807 (2008).
2. Badgett MVL. The gay health insurance gap. AlterNet [serial on the Internet]. 2006 [cited 2010 Jun 16]. Available from: http://www.alternet.org/ rights/43429/
3. 1 U.S. Code, sec. 7, as enacted by PL 104-199, sec. 3(a), 110 Stat. 4219 (1996).
4. The federal income tax imposed on the value of employer-sponsored health insurance is just one of many ways in which federal law imposes unequal burdens on same-sex partners. In a 2004 report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 1,138 federal statutory provisions in which marital status affects obligations, rights, benefits, and protections, including a number concerning health insurance. Hence, legal reforms, at both the federal and state levels, to marriage eligibility and recognition laws, tax laws, and insurance regulations have the potential to affect the health coverage of same-sex couples. Shah DK. Defense of Marriage Act-update to prior report.Washington (DC): GAO; 2004. Report no. GAO-04-353R.
5. Institute of Medicine. Coverage matters: insurance and health care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2001.
6. Hadley J. Sicker and poorer - the consequences of being uninsured: a review of the research on the relationship between health insurance, medical care use, health, work, and income. Med Care Res Rev. 2003;60(2):3S-75S.
7. Kominski G, Roby D. Estimating the costs of caring for California's uninsured. Los Angeles (CA): University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Health Policy Research; 2004 May.
8. To be eligible for Medicaid, in addition to being low-income, the partner would have to be elderly, disabled, or pregnant or have one or more children. 42 U.S. Code, sec. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i).
9. Heck JE, Sell RL, Gorin SS. Health care access among individuals involved in same-sex relationships. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(6):1111-8.
10. Ash M, Badgett MVL. Separate and unequal: the effect of unequal access to employment-based health insurance on same-sex and unmarried different-sex couples. Contemp Econ Policy. 2006;24(4):582-99.
11. Buchmueller T, Carpenter CS. Disparities in health insurance coverage, access, and outcomes for individuals in same-sex versus differentsex relationships, 2000-2007. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(3):489-95.
12. Carpenter C, Gates GJ. Gay and lesbian partnership: evidence from California. Demography. 2008;45(3):573-90.
13. Cochran SD. Emerging issues in research on lesbians' and gay men's mental health: does sexual orientation really matter? Am Psychol. 2001;56(11):931-47.
14. Diamant AL, Wold C, Spritzer K, Gelberg L. Health behaviors, health status, and access to and use of health care: a population-based study of lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women. Arch Family Med. 2000;91:591-7.
15. Lambda Legal. Marriage watch: California - FAQ; what the California Supreme Court's decision in Strauss v. Horton (the Prop 8 legal challenge) means [Internet]. New York (NY): Lambda Legal; 2009 Oct 6 [cited 2010 Jun 12]. Available from: http://data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/fs-marriage- watch-california-faq.pdf
16. The Appendix is available by clicking on the Appendix link in the box to the right of the article online.
17. 29 U.S. Code, secs. 1144 and 1144(a).
18. Lambda Legal. An unfulfilled promise: lesbian and gay inequality under American law [Internet]. New York (NY): Lambda Legal; 2010 Mar 10 [cited 2010 Jun 3]. Available from: http://data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/fs- an-unfulfilled-promise.pdf
19. Badgett MVL. Money, myths, and change: the economic lives of lesbians and gay men. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press; 2001.
20. California Health Interview Survey. Survey design and methods [Internet]. Methodology reports for survey years 2001, 2003, and 2005. Los Angeles (CA): University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Health Policy Research; [cited 2010 Jun 3]. Available from: http://www.chis.ucla.edu/methodology.html
21. Cochran SD, Mays VM. Physical health complaints among lesbians, gay men, and bisexual and homosexually experienced heterosexual individuals: results from the California Quality of Life Survey. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(11):2048-55.
22. Gates GJ. Same-sex couples and the gay, lesbian, bisexual population: new estimates from the American Community Survey. Los Angeles (CA): Williams Institute; 2006.
23. National Conference of State Legislatures. Same sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships [Internet]. Denver (CO): NCSL; 2010 Apr [cited 2010 Jun 3]. Available from: http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/HumanServices/ SameSexMarriage/tabid/16430/Default.aspx
24. As of this writing, the Hawaii legislature has approved House Bill 444 to create civil unions that will be open to both same- and different-sex couples if Gov. Linda Lingle signs the bill or allows it to take effect without her signature.
25. National Conference of State Legislatures. States offering benefits for same-sex partners of state employees [Internet]. Denver (CO): NCSL; [cited 2010 Jun 3]. Available from: http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=16315
26. Arizona House Bill 2013, signed 4 September 2009 by Gov. Jan Brewer. The benefits are to end in October 2010.
27. Kass NE, Faden RR, Fox R, Dudley J. Loss of private health insurance among homosexual men with AIDS. Inquiry. 1991;28(3):249-54.
28. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, PL 111-148, sec. 2001 (authorizing states to cover childless adults meeting poverty threshold as of 1 January 2011 and requiring such coverage as of 1 January 2014).
29. Fernandez B. Grandfathered health plans under PPACA (PL 111-148) [Internet]. Washington (DC): Congressional Research Service; 2010 Apr 7 [cited 2010 Jun 2]. Available from: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ GrandfatheredPlans.pdf
30. The Tax Equity for Domestic Partners and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act is pending in the Senate as S 1153 and the House as HR 2625. 31 White House [Internet]. Washington, DC: White House. Press release, Presidential memorandum - hospital visitation; 2010 Apr 15 [cited 2010 Jun 3]. Available from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hospital- visitation
31. White House [Internet]. Washington, DC: White House. Press release, Presidential memorandum - extension of benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees; 2010 Jun 2 [cited 2010 Jun 12]. Available from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-extension- benefits-same-sex-domestic-partners-federal-emplo
32. White House [Internet]. Washington, DC: White House. Press release, Statement by the president on the extension of benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees; 2010 Jun 2 [cited 2010 Jun 12]. Available from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-extension- benefits-same-sex-domestic-partners-federal-employees
33. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act is pending in the House as HR 2517 and the Senate as S 1102.
34. The Respect for Marriage Act of 2009 (HR 1283) has been introduced in the House.
35. Gill v. OPM, Case no. 1:09-cv-10309 JLT, U.S.D.C. for the District of Massachusetts.
36. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Svcs., Civ. A. no. 1:09-11156-JLT, U.S.D.C. for the District of Massachusetts.