Skip to main content

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.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

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.

Recommendations

Matter for Congressional Consideration

Matter Status Comments
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.
Closed – Implemented
Congress did not vote the bill out of committee. This alternative action made this recommendation to revise the bill moot.

Full Report

Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
Managing Director
Office of Public Affairs

Public Inquiries

Topics

DiscriminationRisk factorsEconomic analysisFunds managementInsurance cost controlInsurance premiumsInsurance regulationPension plan cost controlProposed legislationPensions