Insurance: Do women lose out?

European social affairs commissioner, Anna Diamantopoulou has told the BBC that she wants to outlaw sex discrimination in the supply of insurance to women.

At the moment women tend to pay more for health insurance policies due to the risks linked to pregnancy.

They also get lower incomes from their pension savings when they buy an annuity as they tend to live longer than men.

However, while women taking out annuities and health insurance may benefit from any change in the law, those who have car insurance could end up paying higher premiums.

Do women lose out when buying insurance policies? Send us your comments and experiences.

---

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received:

Surely this is not sex discrimination, just a reflection that women having a higher risk of claiming against a policy. I have a comparable job to my husband and I pay higher insurance premiums because there is a higher claim rate amongst women - I have no problem with that. As for covering for pensions when they give up work to have children - surely having children is a choice and why should those without children have to pick up on the cost for people who want children? At the most they should be given the option to continue to contribute to their pension scheme whilst off work.
Vicky, UK

I'm afraid this is utter nonsense. As others have mentioned, insurance is about risk. The riskier the life, the more you pay. Insurance rates are calculated on sound actuarial principles and gauged against the likelihood of mortality. This is just an example of political correctness getting out of hand.
Mark, Scotland

Women pay more for health insurance and annuities. Men pay more for motoring and life insurance. Please don't be sexist against men and try to pretend insurance as a whole is where women are treated unfairly. If we really want equal annuity rates, why don't we spend more money on male healthcare to equalise life expectancy?
Steve Johnson, UK

Insurance is pure statistics; anything else is a con trick. John R Smith, UK

If insurance ever becomes anything other than a reflection of the risk being insured, then I'll cancel all my policies. After all why should a man have to share the cost of a woman's possible death in pregnancy, or a woman share the cost of high speed driving by men, or a non-smoker share the cost of cancer in smokers, or a healthy person cover the cost of an obese couch potato etc? Insurance is pure statistics; anything else is a con trick.
John R Smith, UK

Women's pension annuities get a further battering because they stop making payments when they give up work to have children. If Anna Diamantopoulou could look at that as well, I'd be really grateful!
Anna, UK

I am an underwriter. A lot of people here are missing the point. Insurance is about SPREADING risk. Sex is one of the risk factors, be it life, critical illness, pensions and annuities or motor insurance. The idea is that you PAY according to the risk you present to the insurer. If this lunacy succeeds, all that will happen is that he/she who pays less now will pay more and vice versa, as insurers seek to balance the books.

It should also be remembered that the perceived gains for women will not be that great, as there is not a 50/50 split of men and women buying any type of cover. If this goes through contributions are likely to move towards the higher level of premium simply because those who are at the highest risk will be prepared to pay for the cover. Nothing but grief will be achieved here.
Steven Jefferson, UK

Women benefit from lower risk of early death on life insurance premiums; so it is only fair that they are charged a fair price for annuities and health insurance
Jim, UK

Why are we so compliant? My experience of insurance companies goes along the lines of if you're gay you're an AIDS risk, if your female you're a pregnancy risk, if your male you drive like a hooligan¿ why are we happy with insurance companies putting us in boxes like this just to line their pockets?
Wendy, UK

Is the EU going to insist that all horses competing in a race have to have equal odds? Irene, UK

I believe in equality but this is nonsense and I object to my taxes being wasted in this manner. Insurers are like bookies - they work out the price according to the odds of paying out a claim. Is the EU going to insist that all horses competing in a race have to have equal odds? I don't think so!
Irene, UK

Insurance companies who pay annuities set out to treat everyone equally. In order to do so it is necessary to take such factors as age and gender into consideration. Rather than look at the initial figure in payment, it is far more valid to look at the overall level of payment during the lifetime of an annuity. At the moment we have a situation where insurance companies set out to pay an equal amount under an annuity policy to both men and women. If these EU proposals were adopted the overall total payment to men in comparison to women would be smaller.
Kevin, England

A pregnant woman is a high risk for insurance companies. A woman gets pregnant all by herself. And that is why she alone has to bear the burden of this insurance-risk. And to give another reason why the whole thing is a bit silly: drinkers, smokers, amateur football players, parents who neglect the health of their children etc etc all pay the same as someone who tries to live healthy. I haven't studied law but isn't the law supposed to be the same for everyone?
Eddie Janssen, The Netherlands

Are insurance companies correctly assessing the risks involved in insuring women? Or is it simply a case of lies, damned lies, and statistics? We are all living longer, men as well as women. Medical advances have vastly reduced the risks associated with pregnancy - one of the reasons why we are living longer. And as more women enter the workplace, undertaking stressful jobs, the disparity in gender life expectancy is decreasing.

But like certain mortgage lenders that are reluctant to pass on interest rate cuts to customers, the insurance industry will not voluntarily reflect conditional risk factors which move in favour of lowering premiums for women or increasing annuities to them. Put simply: This isn't so much sexual discrimination as another instance of the consumer getting an unfair deal.
Adeline, UK

How about having two options for women: one that includes pregnancy and one that specifically excludes it. Then people like me who don't want children can opt for the lower premium in the way that drivers who take out third party insurance choose to do so.
Lynne, UK

It's a matter of risk assessment, not sex discrimination David Watterson, UK

It's a case of swings and roundabouts - car and life insurance is typically lower for women in the same way that health insurance is lower for men. It's a matter of risk assessment, not sex discrimination.
David Watterson, UK

Women lose out because policies are designed from a male perspective, and are then merely adjusted to attempt to accommodate women. A system that treats men and women with equal concern from the outset is needed if it is to become fair.
Jane, UK

This is a double-edged sword. While generally speaking women live longer, they are also better drivers, so while annuity rates are lower but so are motoring insurance premiums. The question is, do we recognise and acknowledge that people are different and live with the discrepancies that that creates, or do we pretend that we are all the same?
Simon, England

I'm afraid this is silly. Insurers are there to make money, not to be nice to people. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for them to charge higher premiums if the insured is a 'high risk' party.
Jen, UK

Pension companies know women live longer on average Phil, UK

Insurance companies look at facts. Men pay higher premiums if they have high blood pressure (far more common in men), so women pay higher premiums because pregnancy is a risky time. Pension companies know women live longer on average. This is all fair and natural - are we saying that men should subsidise women because they live longer?
Phil, UK

If women are to get the same life insurance premiums as men, then it stands to reason that men will get the same car and motorcycle insurance premiums as women. If comparison with my wife is anything to go by, this will halve my current motorcycle insurance premium.
Dan, UK

I agree with the Commissioner. It is an absolute disgrace that women should be charged more due to 'the risks linked to pregnancy'. I was also rather dismayed to hear the situation being defended this morning by the female head of the ABI. Surely the cost of any risks associated with being female should be spread evenly across the population - after all, pregnancy is not a kind of bonus treat for women, but is actually continuing the human race!
NK, UK

Women have less car accidents - agree or not it's a fact. They pay lower car insurance premiums - fact. Do they volunteer to pay more? Why should they? Women live longer than men - fact. Women have more time on earth, do men moan, maybe, but there's didly squatt we can do about it, it's just another fact. Facts are facts, and no-one can argue against it. If women live longer they get a lower annuity value - that's how annuities work - fact. Get the idea? I am not sexist, just looking at the issue objectively.
David Poynton, UK

The market tends to be the best regulator here John, UK

This is plain silly. The market tends to be the best regulator here. Insurance underwriting is about weighing up degrees of risk, and if there is any 'level pegging' of pension annuities, insurance companies will simply raise annuity prices or reduce men's pensions to match women's payouts. What women won't get is something for nothing. And how many women will want to pay higher car insurance?
John, UK

If she enacts measures which forbid insurance companies from basing their premiums and cover on the risk they have to take, then she will achieve one of two things. Either men will have to suffer reduced cover and/or higher premiums in order to subsidise the female customers, or the insurance companies will become less profitable. Those who take the view that profit-making is somehow selfish or immoral should think carefully before supporting this measure though, as regulating away insurance company profits will have a big impact on ordinary people's pension funds, the insurance company employees and the tax revenue those companies generate.
Graham, UK

I doubt pension providers will start paying more to women, they'll start paying less to men. Naturally I'm against this proposal.
Martin, England

Insurance companies discriminate against all - that's how they make money Jane Rawlings, England

Insurance companies discriminate against all - that's how they make money! Read the small print on any policy and there is always a "get out of jail" option for the insurer. Just as women run into hassles, so do motorcyclists trying to get travel insurance, for example. Or try getting travel insurance for the US if you have been recently ill.
Jane Rawlings, England

Insurance is a risk evaluating business, not social welfare!
Simon, England

I bought a house with my mother three years ago at the Clydesdale bank and because we were women we were not entitled to joint insurance. The banks model assumed that the first person on the mortgage is a man. We ended up having to get separate insurance and paying much more. There attitude was narrow and very outdated. Any attempts I made to rectify the matter were rebuffed. I imagine this is not an isolated incident.
Maureen, France (Scotland)

This seems to be another case of political correctness going to far. Insurance is based on risk assessment (and a good dollop of capitalist greed). If you are a higher risk, you should pay more. Perhaps we should start campaigning against age discrimination in insurance as well. I could do with cheaper car insurance.
Glyn, Derby, UK

Biology states that men and women are different. There is no getting round this. Are all jobs and lifestyles equal even within the same sex? Are all areas that we live in equal? Clearly not, therefore there is a different risk associated with it, it's just sensible business. PC gone mad again.
Stephen, UK

There will never be a one size fits all solution to everything Karen, UK

It seems that there is always some reason to claim discrimination. At the end of the day, policy costs etc. are calculated by actuaries based on actual statistical data of what happens in real life. We may not like the results, but I don't believe they are deliberately discriminatory. There will never be a one size fits all solution to everything, and if insurers didn't make risk assessments specific to policy applicants then we would all end up paying much more.
Karen, UK

I am all in favour of outlawing sex discrimination in the supply of insurance! I am sick of those insurance companies offering specially discounted motor insurance to women only. Here's to a level playing field.
Chris, UK

Great idea! There's far to much discrimination as it is - drivers with speeding and driving convictions having to pay more just 'cos they're a higher risk, it's outrageous! And what's all this about impaired life annuities for those in poor health? It blatantly discriminates against the healthy as does paying older people a higher annuity than the young - how blatant does discrimination need to be before someone acts. There should be a single rate for insurance for everyone, regardless of age, sex, state of health, medical history etc. It's the only fair way to do it. Don't listen to those who say that the differences between insurance costs between men and women are based on real, measurable differences in risks and costs - they are but that's not the point! The point is... Well, I'm not sure what the point is, but it's a damn good point and you should all just agree 'cos if you don't you're a misogynist so-and-so!
NH, Scotland

How are insurance companies expected to calculate their annuities on any other basis than life expectancy? Why is it so difficult for the PC ideologists to accept that there are differences between men and women that must be acknowledged? There are many cases where discrimination is wrong, but annuity pricing is not one of them.
David, Bahamas

Women don't get lower incomes from annuities - they just get a lower starting level, because they live longer, and it balances out in the end.
Martin, England, UK

Will Ms Diamantopoulou also outlaw these "women only" car insurance companies as well in the interests of equality. Having a unblemished licence and insurance history, I feel somewhat discriminated against by those companies who say that bacause I'm a man, I must be less safe than a woman behind the wheel.
Matt, Leeds, England

Men crash cars more often so they pay more insurance. Women live longer so they get less income from the pension scemes. Women use doctors more than men - especially because of pregnancies. Drink-driving offenders pay higher insurance as they are more likely to drink and drive again. It seems pretty fair to me.
Anon, England

Discrimination is part of the nature of insurance. If you are a poorer risk, you pay more. As a male motorcyclist, I pay high insurance premiums. If you live longer, your pension will be lower. If you want a larger pension, take up smoking or mountain climbing.
Colin Smith, UK