HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobabnmh0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
RELESEDCOMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
i ! RELEASED WASHINGTON D.C. 2054
AUGUST 27, 1984
B-213348
125245
The Honorable James J. Exon
United States Senate
Dear Senator Exon:
Subject: Comments on the Economic Implications of the
Exon Amendment to the Fair Insurance
Practices Act (GAO/OCE-84-7)
On July 11, 1983, you requested that-we comment on how your
proposed amendment to S. 372, the proposed Fair Insurance Prac-
tices Act, would alter the cost implications of the bill, which
we have described in our recent report, Economic Implications of
the Fair Insurance Practices Act (GAO/OCE-84-1, April 6, 1984).
THE FAIR INSURANCE PRACTICES ACT
The Fair Insurance Practices Act, as originally introduced,
would have prohibited distinctions based on race, color, reli-
gion, sex, or national origin in the marketing and pricing of
insurance and pensions. So far as we know, the only one of these
characteristics which is explicitly used as a risk factor in the
pricing and marketing of insurance and pensions is sex. The bill
would have required that sex-distinct premiums and benefits in
existing and future insurance and pension contracts be equal-
ized. The bill also would have required that no one's benefits
be reduced as part of the equalization process.
PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed amendment would make several substantial
changes in the bill. First, while it would continue to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national
origin, distinctions based on sex would be defined as discrimina-
tory only in connection with employee benefit plans. For indiv-
idual insurance contracts, practices such as denial of coverage
(Sec. 4(a)(1)], retaliatory discrimination [Sec. 4(b)(2)], and
targeted marketing [Sec. 4(b)(3)), as well as distinctions in
prices [Sec. 4(a)(2)), would not be prohibited if based on sex.
-(972120)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobabnmh0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)