Gay Couples May Marry For Health Coverage — If Supreme Court Lets Them
Some employers say gay couples must marry in order to gain coverage for their partners. Elsewhere, some insurers are paying hospitals what they think they should pay for care.
The Wall Street Journal:
Gay Couples Tie The Knot For Health Benefits
Wedding bells will ring later this year if the Supreme Court decides that gay couples are constitutionally entitled to marry. But health insurance, more than romance, may nudge some couples down the aisle. Amid a push that has made same-sex marriage legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia, some employers are telling gay workers they must wed in order to maintain health-care coverage for their partners. About a third of public- and private-sector employees in the U.S. have access to benefits for unmarried gay partners, according to a federal tally, but employment lawyers say the fast-changing legal outlook is spurring some employers to rethink that coverage. (Silverman, 5/12)
Earlier KHN coverage: Once, Same-Sex Couples Couldn’t Wed; Now, Some Employers Say They Must (Appleby, 1/20)
Kaiser Health News:
Radical Approach To Huge Hospital Bills: Set Your Own Price
In the late 1990s you could have taken what hospitals charged to administer inpatient chemotherapy and bought a Ford Escort econobox. Today average chemo charges (not even counting the price of the anti-cancer drugs) are enough to pay for a Lexus GX sport-utility vehicle, government data show. Hospital prices have risen nearly three times as much as overall inflation since Ronald Reagan was president. Health payers have tried HMOs, accountable care organizations and other innovations to control them, with little effect. (Hancock, 5/13)
