Equal Opportunity:

Comments on the Economic Implications of the Proposed Florio Amendment to the Nondiscrimination in Insurance Act

OCE-84-6: Published: Sep 27, 1984. Publicly Released: Oct 29, 1984.


Lawrence H. Thompson
(202) 275-6209


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

GAO was asked to analyze a substitute to H.R. 100, proposed legislation which would prohibit distinctions based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in the marketing and pricing of insurance and pension contracts. The bill would have required that: (1) sex-distinct premiums and benefits in the contracts be equalized; and (2) no one's benefits be reduced as part of the equalization process. The substitute bill would: (1) allow sex distinctions to continue in existing contracts; (2) delete the provision that no one's benefits would be reduced as part of the equalization process; (3) prohibit targeted marketing of insurance; and (4) extend the transition period.

GAO found that some of the economic effects of the substitute bill would be significantly different from those of the originally proposed legislation. In particular, the increases in unfunded liabilities created by the original bill for life insurance companies and pension plans would be reduced by between $18.3 and $21.6 billion. These reductions would result largely from allowing sex distinctions to continue in existing life insurance contracts and in pensions and annuities currently being paid to retirees. Therefore, the redistributive effects of the substitute bill would be smaller than those of the original bill. The efficiency effects would be the same under the substitute bill as under the original bill, unless the legislation were interpreted as prohibiting the use of risk factors correlated with sex. In this case, efficiency losses would increase because the size of price changes would increase and policyholders would be more likely to change their purchases of insurance, and the positive effects associated with substituting other risk factors would no longer be possible. In addition, the original bill would have imposed $800 million in administrative costs and the substitute bill makes these changes unnecessary. Finally, because the substitute bill would reduce the unfunded liabilities and extend the period for implementing the act's requirements, it would virtually eliminate the risk of insurance company insolvency resulting from the legislation.

Status Legend:

More Info
  • Review Pending-GAO has not yet assessed implementation status.
  • Open-Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned, or actions that partially satisfy the intent of the recommendation have been taken.
  • Closed-implemented-Actions that satisfy the intent of the recommendation have been taken.
  • Closed-not implemented-While the intent of the recommendation has not been satisfied, time or circumstances have rendered the recommendation invalid.
    • Review Pending
    • Open
    • Closed - implemented
    • Closed - not implemented

    Matter for Congressional Consideration

    Matter: Congress should revise section 4(f) of the substitute bill to make clear whether it is intended to prohibit only risk factors explicitly based on sex, or risk factors correlated with sex as well.

    Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: Congress did not vote the bill out of committee. This alternative action made this recommendation to revise the bill moot.

    Jul 25, 2013

    May 16, 2013

    Aug 2, 2012

    Sep 30, 2011

    Apr 28, 2011

    Jul 29, 2010

    May 24, 2010

    Dec 3, 2009

    Oct 27, 2009

    Oct 14, 2009

    Looking for more? Browse all our products here