Off the Fringe: Domestic-Partner Benefits
Organizations that offer benefit coverage to same-sex couples are no longer on the fringe, according to various news stories in recent months. Business and Health magazine, for example, reports that close to 40% of Fortune 100 firms and nearly a fifth of Fortune 500 firms offer such domestic-partner coverage.
This trend has received considerable attention since the Big Three automakers announced that they would offer health benefits to the same-sex partners of their hourly and salaried employees in the U.S. “To see virtually an entire industry, an old economy industry at that, say that they are going to change their policies is a signal to other companies that there is a good business reason for adopting these benefits,” states Kim Mills, education director for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a gay and lesbian rights organization.
Such coverage is not confined to private-sector companies. In fact, the New York Times reports that 90 state and local governments or government agencies provide domestic-partner health benefits. Since August 1999, Connecticut and Washington have added benefits for state workers, joining California, New York, Vermont and Oregon. In addition, 12 cities and counties have added or announced that they would begin to offer these benefits, including Atlanta, Phoenix, and Albuquerque.
Online news provider hr-esource reports that providing healthcare benefits to workers’ domestic partners - in either same-sex or opposite-sex relationships - may not be as costly as some employers think. HR professionals generally consider two factors when determining cost projections: how many workers will enroll and how expensive new enrollees’ health risks may be. Experts note that, for now, only a small portion of workers who are offered such benefits take advantage of them and most who do so are opposite-sex couples. Therefore, restricting domestic-partner benefits to same-sex couples - the legality of which was upheld in Foray v. Bell Atlantic - may help manage enrollment levels. Moreover, the health risks associated with same-sex partners – primarily HIV/AIDS care – often cost less than treating premature childbirth, heart disease or cancer. For example, costs to treat premature childbirth are about five times that of treating AIDS.
Often, domestic partners are employed and may already have coverage of their own. Federal tax laws also dissuade some from participating. While a married person pays nothing to receive such benefits, domestic partners are taxed. William Massey, editor of RIA’s Federal Taxes Weekly Alert, notes that unless a partner is a dependent, such benefits will be treated as income.
There are, of course, other issues to consider. Some groups, such as the conservative Christian public policy organization Family Research Council, argue that companies should not be in the business of “validating relationships.” And while some employers think it’s fair to limit domestic-partner benefits only to homosexual couples - because heterosexuals have the legal right to marry - others believe such benefits should be provided equally, regardless of sexual orientation. To ensure fairness, some organizations have established a “one-adult rule” that allows employees to cover themselves and one other adult who lives in the same household, regardless of whether that adult is a grown child, a grandparent or a partner. Experts note that, however they’re designed, programs should have enforceable standards. Such standards should clearly detail, for example, what is to be done when a live-in relationship ends.
From a global perspective, these issues may eventually be affected by the fact that the Netherlands’ parliament recently voted to allow same-sex couples to marry on the same terms as men and women. The Washington Post reports that this could bring some gay and lesbian couples to the Netherlands to marry, and getting such marriages recognized in the U.S. may become the next legal challenge for gay rights organizations.
====================================================
HRC's Web site offers information on domestic-partner standards at http://www.hrc.org/worknet/main.html. The group has recently published a report called "The State of the Workplace."
The following articles were used to help write this TrendWatcher:
"Big Three Automakers Offer Health Benefits to Same Sex Partners." hr-esource. Internet [www.hr-esource.com]. June 19, 2000.
Lippman, Helen. "Partner Benefits Go Mainstream." Business & Health, September 2000, pp. 51-52.
"More Companies Offering Same-Sex-Partner Benefits." New York Times, September 26, 2000.
Richburg, Keith B. "Dutch Legalize Same-Sex Marriages." Washington Post, September 13, 2000, p. A28.
"Same-Sex Benefits Can Ring Up Tax Bill." USA TODAY, October 3, 2000, p. 3B.
"Who's a Domestic Partner and What Benefits Should They Receive?" hr-esource. Internet [www.hr-esource.com]. June 26, 2000.
This trend has received considerable attention since the Big Three automakers announced that they would offer health benefits to the same-sex partners of their hourly and salaried employees in the U.S. “To see virtually an entire industry, an old economy industry at that, say that they are going to change their policies is a signal to other companies that there is a good business reason for adopting these benefits,” states Kim Mills, education director for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a gay and lesbian rights organization.
Such coverage is not confined to private-sector companies. In fact, the New York Times reports that 90 state and local governments or government agencies provide domestic-partner health benefits. Since August 1999, Connecticut and Washington have added benefits for state workers, joining California, New York, Vermont and Oregon. In addition, 12 cities and counties have added or announced that they would begin to offer these benefits, including Atlanta, Phoenix, and Albuquerque.
Online news provider hr-esource reports that providing healthcare benefits to workers’ domestic partners - in either same-sex or opposite-sex relationships - may not be as costly as some employers think. HR professionals generally consider two factors when determining cost projections: how many workers will enroll and how expensive new enrollees’ health risks may be. Experts note that, for now, only a small portion of workers who are offered such benefits take advantage of them and most who do so are opposite-sex couples. Therefore, restricting domestic-partner benefits to same-sex couples - the legality of which was upheld in Foray v. Bell Atlantic - may help manage enrollment levels. Moreover, the health risks associated with same-sex partners – primarily HIV/AIDS care – often cost less than treating premature childbirth, heart disease or cancer. For example, costs to treat premature childbirth are about five times that of treating AIDS.
Often, domestic partners are employed and may already have coverage of their own. Federal tax laws also dissuade some from participating. While a married person pays nothing to receive such benefits, domestic partners are taxed. William Massey, editor of RIA’s Federal Taxes Weekly Alert, notes that unless a partner is a dependent, such benefits will be treated as income.
There are, of course, other issues to consider. Some groups, such as the conservative Christian public policy organization Family Research Council, argue that companies should not be in the business of “validating relationships.” And while some employers think it’s fair to limit domestic-partner benefits only to homosexual couples - because heterosexuals have the legal right to marry - others believe such benefits should be provided equally, regardless of sexual orientation. To ensure fairness, some organizations have established a “one-adult rule” that allows employees to cover themselves and one other adult who lives in the same household, regardless of whether that adult is a grown child, a grandparent or a partner. Experts note that, however they’re designed, programs should have enforceable standards. Such standards should clearly detail, for example, what is to be done when a live-in relationship ends.
From a global perspective, these issues may eventually be affected by the fact that the Netherlands’ parliament recently voted to allow same-sex couples to marry on the same terms as men and women. The Washington Post reports that this could bring some gay and lesbian couples to the Netherlands to marry, and getting such marriages recognized in the U.S. may become the next legal challenge for gay rights organizations.
====================================================
HRC's Web site offers information on domestic-partner standards at http://www.hrc.org/worknet/main.html. The group has recently published a report called "The State of the Workplace."
The following articles were used to help write this TrendWatcher:
"Big Three Automakers Offer Health Benefits to Same Sex Partners." hr-esource. Internet [www.hr-esource.com]. June 19, 2000.
Lippman, Helen. "Partner Benefits Go Mainstream." Business & Health, September 2000, pp. 51-52.
"More Companies Offering Same-Sex-Partner Benefits." New York Times, September 26, 2000.
Richburg, Keith B. "Dutch Legalize Same-Sex Marriages." Washington Post, September 13, 2000, p. A28.
"Same-Sex Benefits Can Ring Up Tax Bill." USA TODAY, October 3, 2000, p. 3B.
"Who's a Domestic Partner and What Benefits Should They Receive?" hr-esource. Internet [www.hr-esource.com]. June 26, 2000.