Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus, who writes about consumer and business issues, took California health insurers to task for "basing health insurance rates on gender" despite a law that went into effect at the turn of the year.

As of Jan. 1, California requires all individual health insurance policies to be sold on a "gender-neutral" basis — that is, without any consideration for whether you're a man or woman.

This is a stupid law, as explained by others below. But the law is the law, isn't it?

Some are meeting that requirement. Others, including Anthem Blue Cross, the state's largest provider of individual coverage, appear to be playing fast and loose with ending what regulators call a discriminatory practice.

All rules, policies, and laws are discriminatory. Lazarus is discriminating between Anthem Blue Cross and other companies.

At the heart of the matter is what used to be an industry standard: Factoring in a person's gender when determining monthly premiums. The practice was based on statistical evidence that showed women in their 20s and 30s on average submitted more healthcare claims than older women.

Similarly, men in their 40s and 50s were seen as more costly than younger men.

This isn't an unreasonable conclusion, just as it could be argued that people who live in certain neighborhoods on average get into more accidents and thus should pay higher rates for car insurance.

Or that the cars are more likely to be stolen or vandalized than in other neighborhoods.

But this doesn't account for individual behavior. A driver might live in an accident-prone area but still have a sterling record behind the wheel.

Well, yes, the individual's personal record should be taken into account, also.

That's why California now requires insurers not to use ZIP Codes as a main factor in setting rates.

No, California banned the use of ZIP codes because voters have voted that way, because they think by voting that way their own rates will go down, rather than realizing and caring that the average rate for all will go up.

In 2009, state lawmakers passed legislation, which was subsequently signed into law, prohibiting insurers from basing rates for individual health insurance policies on a person's gender. The thinking was that it's unfair to lump all men or women into a single category.

Of course you don’t lump all into a single category. Earlier in this column he noted that they weren't lumping all men and all women together. They were also divided by age and other factors.

The legislation was introduced after I wrote a column about a 22-year-old Blue Shield customer whose rate went up 20% in part because she was a woman.

The legislation was also introduced after the death of Nixon. There must be some connection, right?

Hers and other women's rates went up simply because, as a Blue Shield spokesman told me at the time, the company's "egghead actuaries" had determined that women are more expensive to insure than men.

One reason for this may be that younger women are more likely to seek preventive care, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In other words, they tend to take steps to stay healthy.

But if they are costing more due to hypochondria than they are saving through catching things earlier, than they are more expensive, aren't they?

Blue Shield introduced gender-neutral rates for all its 330,000 individual policyholders statewide at the beginning of the month. This resulted in rate increases of as much as 15% for younger men and rate cuts of up to 16% for younger women.

So the men are now paying more than they were before to subsidize the women.

But Anthem says it's introducing gender-neutral rates for its more than 700,000 individual policyholders only on an annual basis. If a policyholder signed up for coverage last December, say, the new rates might not kick in until this December.

If the letter of the law allows that, then why shouldn't they do it what way?

Under the terms of the law, insurers are correct in saying that existing policies need to comply with gender neutrality when they come up for renewal. But it appears most insurers have overlooked the portion of the law that also requires compliance when a policy is amended.

Wasn't paying more to have a statewide Insurance Commissioner supposed to fix all of these problems?

Virtually all insurers have cited the federal healthcare reform law as a key reason for recent rate hikes. That change would seem to represent an amendment of previous terms and thus require immediate compliance with gender neutrality.

Thanks for that, Obama. Here come the comments…

"JoeSexPack" at 11:20 PM January 13, 2011:

This 'gender-neutral' law is wrong & needs to be erased.

If women on average have lower pain thresholds than men, & visit doctors more than men, they can pay for this themselves.

Is anyone crying because insurers charge teenage male drivers more than their teenage female sisters? Of course not, since teenage males are more prone to risky behavior like speeding. We all know this, & PC rules allow discrimination against men, especially the pale skin variety.

Man up, ladies. Equality means you pay your own way, no more parasiting off men.

But how do you really feel?

"GregMaragos" at 12:10 AM January 14, 2011:

As a father of two daughters, I can honestly tell you that insurance companies do not charge you more if you are female in order to be cruel or to make women feel like second-class citizens.  It is done because women are more vulnerable to serious health expenses as relates directly to the fact that they are women, to wit, pregnancy and various gender-related issues.   This is really no different than taking other factors, such as age, height, weight, smoking, and motor cycle riding into consideration when determining risk.

Nah, they must be doing it just because they are a bunch of sexist jerks.

"Computer Forensics Expert" at 2:42 AM January 14, 2011:

Women, for the most part, have a higher risk rating for obvious reasons.  More things that can go wrong, than for a guy.  Generally, there is a higher frequency of doctor visits.

Guys don't need:

1.  OB/GYN services

2.  Mammograms

3.  Pap smears

4.  Rx for menses

and the list goes on.

Simply stated, why should a guy pay for things that he isn't going to use?  The problem with the 'equality arguments is that now everybody will pay the higher rate.

"Art Vandelay1" at 11:00 AM January 14, 2011 rips into the piece:
 
The Times should be embarassed to publish a columnist in the business section who apparently doesn't know anything about economics, and doesn't care.

He writes that older men "were seen as" more costly to insure than younger men, like it was some primitive superstitition, rather than based on statistical evidence.

And that women in their 20s and 30s are more expensive to insure because they tend to take steps to stay healthy - like eating blueberries and taking Pilates outweigh the prime child-bearing years.

And the categories used by insurance companies don't take account of individual differences - so the answer is to treat everyone as though they are exactly the same, rather than take into account those differences that can be observed.

How do you really feel?