Women's advocacy group: Auburn, four other schools, businesses violated health care law

[MDM4AU 338]

Women's advocacy group: Auburn, four other schools, businesses violated health care law

By Debbie M. Lord | dlord@al.com al.com

Email the author | Follow on Twitter

on June 04, 2013 at 8:41 PM, updated June 04, 2013 at 9:27 PM

A women's advocacy group has filed a complaint against Auburn University saying the school violated the Affordable Care Act by failing to offer pregnancy coverage to their employees' dependent children.

The Women's Law Center filed complaints Tuesday with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's Office for Civil Rights against Auburn and four other universities and businesses saying the institutions discriminated against pregnant women on the basis of sex.

Sharon Levin, director of federal reproductive health polices at the center, told the Associated Press, "This affects young women who are on their parents' plans; they are being discriminated against. Those medical costs are substantial."

The other institutions named in the complaint are Battelle Memorial Institute, in Columbus, Ohio; Beacon Health System, in South Bend, Ind.; Gonzaga University, in Spokane, Wash.; and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, in Harrisburg, Pa.

According to Levin, the center believes its complaints are the first to challenge dependent pregnancy coverage exclusions under what has become known as "Obamacare."

She told National Public Radio, "We were always aware that [section] 1557 would apply to this situation, but we wanted to make sure that we had all our ducks in a row to file the complaints before we started talking about it."

The federal Affordable Care Act allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance. Levin said the center hopes that if the universities and companies targeted in the complaint are forced to comply with the federal law that other businesses will follow suit.

Representatives from Auburn had no comment Tuesday.

According to Judy Waxman, the center's vice president for health and reproductive rights, excluding maternity coverage for female dependent children of employees means young women on their parents' plans receive less comprehensive benefits than those provided to young men.

“When an institution excludes maternity coverage for the female dependent children of its employees, it means that young women on their parents’ plans receive benefits that are less comprehensive than those provided to young adult men,” said Waxman on the center's website. “Providing a less favorable set of benefits to employees’ daughters compared to their sons is not only unfair, it is also discrimination on the basis of sex – a violation of Section 1557 of the ACA.”

The center anticipates that the Office for Civil Rights will investigate the claims and reach an agreement with the companies, Levin said.

From the Affordable Care Act

SEC. 1557

ø

42 U.S.C. 18116

¿

. NONDISCRIMINATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided for in this title (or an amendment made by this title), an individual shall not, on the ground prohibited under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments of

1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975

(42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), be excluded from participation in, be denied

the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health

program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial

assistance, including credits, subsidies, or contracts of insurance, or

under any program or activity that is administered by an Executive

Agency or any entity established under this title (or amendments).

The enforcement mechanisms provided for and available under

such title VI, title IX, section 504, or such Age Discrimination Act

shall apply for purposes of violations of this subsection.

(

CONTINUED APPLICATION OF LAWS.—Nothing in this title (or

an amendment made by this title) shall be construed to invalidate

or limit the rights, remedies, procedures, or legal standards avail-

able to individuals aggrieved under title VI of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), title IX of the Education Amend-

ments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), section 504 of the Rehabili-

tation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), or the Age Discrimination Act

of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), or to supersede State laws that pro-

vide additional protections against discrimination on any basis de-

scribed in subsection (a).

© REGULATIONS.—The Secretary may promulgate regulations

to implement this section.

[autigeremt 7,260]

Just the tip of the iceberg. Now we have to cover the daughters of the employees paternity health benefits. Yeah....that makes sense. Where's the personal responsibility in all this? Geez!

[AURaptor 1,137]

Good.