0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
msJAMA |

Domestic Partnership Benefits at Medical Universities FREE

Katherine A. O'Hanlan, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Not Available


Not Available


JAMA. 1999;282(13):1289-1292. doi:10.1001/jama.282.13.1289-JMS1006-4-1.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

At present, an employee's benefits package can represent as much as 30% to 40% of value added to a base salary.1 So-called soft benefits, such as bereavement leave, facilities use, and employee assistance programs, cost little to provide. "Hard benefits," on the other hand, are usually of considerable value; these include medical, dental, vision, and mental health coverage, prescription drugs, tuition grants, and accidental death and dismemberment and dependent life insurance.

Over the last half-century workers have received medical insurance as an employment benefit because employers were able to negotiate volume-discounted costs for expensive policies and programs. Benefits have historically been nontaxable and limited to the employee, a legal spouse, and dependent children.

Gay men and lesbians cannot obtain a civil marriage license or access employee spousal benefits. As a result, the couple must purchase a separate individual, usually more expensive insurance policy for the nonemployed partner and the partner's biological children.

In December 1988, colleagues at Albert Einstein College of Medicine informed me that their spouses received medical insurance as an employment benefit. Upon inquiry at the benefits office, I was informed that state laws did not require coverage of my life partner, so we would not be offered medical insurance. My department chair suggested asking the faculty senate to mandate coverage.

On September 13, 1989, my resolution was presented, citing Yeshiva University's "long-standing commitment to equal opportunity . . . without regard to race, religion, creed, color, natural origin, sex, age, handicap, veteran or disabled veteran status, marital status, or sexual orientation."2 The resolution noted that not all people could obtain marriage licenses entitling them to certain privileges of employment. The resolution asked that the senate mandate "insurance benefits, education benefits, and housing accommodations without regard to sexual orientation for all faculty and students who share domicile and mutual responsibility for each other's welfare and basic living expenses, and who have either a marriage license or mutual power of attorney."2 It passed unanimously.

Coverage was not forthcoming, however, because the health plan "treat[ed] all unmarried individuals equally and cannot differentiate between groups of unmarried individuals who may happen to cohabitate" (K. Prince, Manager of Employee Benefits of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, written communication, November 22, 1989). Upon consultation, the American Civil Liberties Union's lawyers drafted a letter citing New York City's nondiscrimination policy inclusive of sexual orientation and a state court verdict recognizing domestic partnership in rental disputes (J.D. Marks, written communication to C. Margolin, Associate General Counsel to Montefiore Medical Center, December 13, 1989).3 Legal counsel drew up a confidential settlement contract for me in early 1990. In March 1991, after other staff and faculty sought similar contracts, Montefiore Medical Center became the largest private employer to provide domestic partner health coverage, announcing it was "the fair thing to do."4

When I began employment at Stanford University, I and my life partner again purchased separate medical insurance. This time, I joined other staff and faculty to establish an equal benefit policy. Three hard benefits and 4 soft benefits tied to legal marriage status formed the basis of the Benefit Parity Bill.5 Over 240 supportive faculty members signed an open letter to the faculty senate, and the undergraduate student union and the medical school faculty senate both passed the bill.

In May 1991, the senate discussion included comments comparing domestic partner insurance coverage with tuition grant reimbursement for children one did not have,6 neither being a deserved benefit. Another worry was that gay men and lesbians would flock disproportionately to Stanford seeking greater benefits.6 The bill was sent for subcommittee review, which recommended passing the bill and reported the following:

"One imagines, for example, that a decision by Stanford 40 years ago to take the lead in eradicating discrimination against blacks, women, or Jews in admissions, hiring, memberships in sororities and fraternities, etc, would have been politically unpopular with many alumni, as well as with the larger political community. One also imagines that had Stanford taken such a leadership role, few in the Stanford community would look back on that decision now with anything but pride."7

Over a year after introduction, the bill passed in September 1992. Stanford's trustees voted to implement it the following February.8

Currently, 141 colleges and universities, 87 cities and counties, and 570 companies provide domestic partner benefits. Utilization rates run from 0.5% to 2.5%, making the costs of equal treatment minimal.1 Often employees request benefit parity, and employers respond to stay competitive.

Gay and lesbian employees have familial responsibilities like other people and are more productive when secure and financially stable. Medical institutions are more attractive to all potential employees if benefits packages are equally-accessible. If a medical center or university bars discrimination due to marital status, equal access to employment benefits is a reasonable corollary. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, and American Medical Women's Association endorse equal treatment for all regardless of sexual orientation.912

Kohn  S The Domestic Partner Organizing Manual.  Washington, DC National Gay and Lesbian Task Force1999;120- 128
O'Hanlan  KA Resolution passed September 13, 1989. Presented at: Faculty Senate of Yeshiva University September 13, 1989 Bronx, NY
Not Available, Braschi v Stahl, 74 NY2d 201, 543 NE2d 49, 544 NYS2d 784 (1989).
Not Available, Statement on benefits for domestic partners [press release].  Bronx, NY Office of Public Relations of Montefiore Medical Center March26 1991;
O'Hanlan  KA Benefit Parity Bill. Presented at: Faculty Senate of Stanford University October19 1991; Palo Alto, Calif.
Bush  CN Senate postpones consideration of bill extending benefits to domestic partners. Stanford University Campus Report. May22 1991;1- 13
Fried  B Report of the Subcommittee on Domestic Partners' Benefits.  Palo Alto, Calif University Committee for Faculty and Staff Benefits of Leland Stanford Jr University June1992;37- 38
Benefits Office of Stanford University, Important special edition: special open enrollment for same-sex domestic partners. Total Compensation News. December1992;1- 6
Bersoff  DNOgden  DW APA amicus curiae briefs: furthering lesbian and gay male civil rights. Am J Psychol. 1991;46950- 956
Link to Article
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition.  Washington, DC American Psychiatric Association1994;538
Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association, Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States. JAMA. 1996;2751354- 1359
Link to Article
American Medical Women's Association, Position paper on lesbian health. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 1993;4986

Figures

Tables

References

Kohn  S The Domestic Partner Organizing Manual.  Washington, DC National Gay and Lesbian Task Force1999;120- 128
O'Hanlan  KA Resolution passed September 13, 1989. Presented at: Faculty Senate of Yeshiva University September 13, 1989 Bronx, NY
Not Available, Braschi v Stahl, 74 NY2d 201, 543 NE2d 49, 544 NYS2d 784 (1989).
Not Available, Statement on benefits for domestic partners [press release].  Bronx, NY Office of Public Relations of Montefiore Medical Center March26 1991;
O'Hanlan  KA Benefit Parity Bill. Presented at: Faculty Senate of Stanford University October19 1991; Palo Alto, Calif.
Bush  CN Senate postpones consideration of bill extending benefits to domestic partners. Stanford University Campus Report. May22 1991;1- 13
Fried  B Report of the Subcommittee on Domestic Partners' Benefits.  Palo Alto, Calif University Committee for Faculty and Staff Benefits of Leland Stanford Jr University June1992;37- 38
Benefits Office of Stanford University, Important special edition: special open enrollment for same-sex domestic partners. Total Compensation News. December1992;1- 6
Bersoff  DNOgden  DW APA amicus curiae briefs: furthering lesbian and gay male civil rights. Am J Psychol. 1991;46950- 956
Link to Article
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition.  Washington, DC American Psychiatric Association1994;538
Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association, Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States. JAMA. 1996;2751354- 1359
Link to Article
American Medical Women's Association, Position paper on lesbian health. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 1993;4986
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.