Federal proposal to remove supplemental insurance benefits opposed by women

Who makes the financial decisions for their households? A new report conducted on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) says that woman do. In fact, 93% of the 1,006 women interviewed said they are the sole household financial decision maker.

Among the parents surveyed, 86% reported it either very important (55%) or somewhat important (31%) for the federal government to support access to supplemental insurance benefits.

Supplemental benefit policies cover health expenses excluded from primary medical insurance — coverage a worker receives on the job, for example. They help cover costs not normally covered by medical insurance such as safety modifications to an apartment or home, transportation to a medical facility, co-pays and deductibles, and many other things normally paid for “out-of-pocket”.

“Health events often deliver significant blows to family budgets,” said ACLI President & CEO Susan Neely. “It’s clear from this Morning Consult research that women with children view supplemental benefits as a valuable option to protect their family’s finances.”

The research found most mothers, 82%, believe supplemental insurance benefits are valuable; 77% of those who are currently employed say that having the option to purchase this coverage through their employer is appealing.

Supplemental benefit products are not a form of primary medical coverage and are therefore distinct from the limited medical insurance products, such as short-term limited duration insurance, discussed in the Tri-Agency proposal.

Related: Setting women up for retirement success: Employers need to bridge that savings gap

Among other things, the proposal would disallow many benefits now available to policyholders of certain supplemental products. It also questions whether certain benefits from cancer or other specified disease products should be disallowed. The proposal would also create new requirements for employers by making them report supplemental benefits paid to their employees as wages. For the policyholder, that would mean these benefits are taxable and could discourage people from obtaining the financial protection they need.

“Proposing structural changes to supplemental benefit policies and tax changes that would make them inaccessible to the very people who need to protect their family finances makes no sense at all,” said Neely.