Are you insured?

[axebahia]

Insurers issue new rules on gays

 

Jill Treanor

Tuesday September 23, 2003

The Guardian

 

Male ballet dancers, hairdressers and cabin crew should no longer face discrimination from insurance companies assessing risks of HIV/Aids as a result of new proposals published yesterday.

The Association of British Insurers has issued five principles that insurers should follow when considering applications for life cover and other protection.

 

The ABI is trying to prevent insurers from making assumptions about applicants' risk of HIV/Aids or sexuality as a result of their occupation.

 

The industry group is also trying to enforce a requirement that applicants are not asked whether they have been tested for HIV but only if they have tested positive or are awaiting the result of a test.

 

The ABI is suggesting new wording for application forms about tests for HIV, hepatitis B or C and visits to countries where there might be a risk of HIV infection.

 

Richard Walsh, the ABI's head of health, said the proposals were intended to make customers feel they were being treated with respect and not being overcharged for their policies.

 

The proposals, which are out for consultation in the industry, have been put together with the support of the Terrence Higgins trust and pinkfinance.com.

 

The ABI is looking for views from other relevant organisations, such as gay and African rights lobbies, doctors, patient support groups and financial advisers, before publishing a final version of the code.

 

Chris Morgan of pinkfinance.com said the guidelines demonstrated a "new level of respect towards gay men". He noted a clause had been introduced for a "new respectful and relevant question" about safe sexual behaviour that was applicable to all risk groups, not only gay men.

 

Martin Kirk of the Terrence Higgins trust welcomed a pledge from insurers to conduct a review of policies on HIV/Aids in three years. The ABI's first statement on the issue was published in 1994 and updated in 1997.

 

The proposals recommend that when communicating with applicants' GPs, insurers should not ask them to speculate on whether the applicant is at higher risk than normal

[Prime Muscle]

Does this mean that my workers' compensation and escort malpractice premiums will be lowered?

[axebahia]

>Does this mean that my workers' compensation and escort

>malpractice premiums will be lowered?

 

I was hoping that Woodlawn would enter the fray. Does nobody want to defend the principle that male ballet dancers and cabin crews, not to mention escorts, companions (whatever that is) and masseurs should pay higher insurance premiums?