Separate and Unequal: The Effect of Unequal Access to Employment-Based Health Insurance on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual People

Employers' standard practice of including legal spouses in health insurance is likely to place people in unmarried couples at a significant disadvantage for obtaining coverage. Data from married and unmarried couples in the Current Population Survey confirm that people with unmarried partners are two to three times more likely to lack health insurance than are people in married couples, even after controlling for factors that influence coverage. A requirement to provide the same benefits for partners as are provided to spouses would reduce the proportion of uninsured people in same-sex couples and different-sex couples by as much as 50%. We find no evidence of adverse selection. We predict that a typical employer offering domestic partner coverage will see a small increase in enrollment, ranging from 0.1% to 0.3% for same-sex partners and 1.3% to 2.1% for different-sex unmarried partners.health, health insurance, benefits, employment benefits, health disparities, domestic partners, minorities, discrimination, gender, sexuality, sexual orientation, gay, lesbian, marriage, same-sex couples

Now That We Do: Same-sex Couples and Marriage in Massachusetts, a Demographic and Economic Perspective

Gay and lesbian couples can now legally marry in Massachusetts. This article examines the demographics of same-sex couples and concludes that gay marriage will have a relatively small but positive long-term aggregate economic impact on the Commonwealth

The Impact on Maryland\u27s Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry

This analysis estimates the potential impact of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples on Maryland’s state budget. Drawing on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Maryland statistical reports, we estimate that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would result in a net gain of approximately $3.2 million each year. This net gain is attributable to savings in expenditures on meanstested public benefit programs and an increase in sales and lodging tax revenue from weddings and wedding-related tourism

Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination 1998-2008

This article summarizes social science data published during the past decade documenting discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in employment. Over the last ten years, many researchers have conducted studies to find out whether LGBT people face sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. These studies include surveys of LGBT individuals\u27 workplace experiences, wage comparisons between lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) and heterosexual persons, analyses of discrimination complaints filed with administrative agencies, and testing studies and controlled experiments

Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community

In 2007, 12.5% of Americans were officially counted as poor by the United States Census Bureau. People from every region, race, age, and sex are counted among our nation’s poor, where ―poor‖ is defined as living in a family with an income below the federal poverty level. In contrast, lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people are invisible in these poverty statistics. This report undertakes the first analysis of the poor and low-income lesbian, gay, and bisexual population. The social and policy context of LGB life provides many reasons to think that LGB people are at least as likely—and perhaps more likely—to experience poverty as are heterosexual people: vulnerability to employment discrimination, lack of access to marriage, higher rates of being uninsured, less family support, or family conflict over coming out. All of those situations could increase the likelihood of poverty among LGB people. In this report, we analyze data from three surveys to compare poverty (as defined by the federal poverty line) between LGB and heterosexual people: Census 2000, the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), and the 2003 & 2005 California Health Interview Surveys (CHIS).We find clear evidence that poverty is at least as common in the LGB population as among heterosexual people and their families. After adjusting for a range of family characteristics that help explain poverty, gay and lesbian couple families are significantly more likely to be poor than are heterosexual married couple families. Notably, lesbian couples and their families are much more likely to be poor than heterosexual couples and their families. Children in gay and lesbian couple households have poverty rates twice those of children in heterosexual married couple households. Within the LGB population, several groups are much more likely to be poor than others. African American people in same-sex couples and same-sex couples who live in rural areas are much more likely to be poor than white or urban same-sex couples. While a small percentage of all families receive government cash supports intended for poor and low-income families, we find that gay and lesbian individuals and couples are more likely to receive these supports than are heterosexuals

The Impact on New Mexico’s Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry

This analysis by UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, estimates the impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry on New Mexico’s state budget. Using the best data available, allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in a net gain of approximately $1.5 million to$2 million each year for the State. This net impact will be the result of savings in expenditures on state means-tested public benefit programs and an increase in sales and lodging tax revenue from weddings and wedding-related tourism

The Impact of Expanding FMLA Rights to Care for Children of Same-Sex Partners

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has expanded its scope of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to allow employees to be allowed unpaid leave to care for the children of unmarried same-sex partners, but does not extend this unpaid leave to care for ill unmarried same-sex partners. This research brief uses data sources to estimate the number of families currently affected by the new ruling and those that would be affected if the FMLA expanded these rights to unmarried same-sex partners

Unequal Taxes on Equal Benefits: The Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits

In this report, we will detail how employees with partners now pay on average $1,069 per year more in taxes than would a married employee with the same coverage. Collectively, unmarried couples lose$178 million per year to additional taxes. U.S. employers also pay a total of $57 million per year in additional payroll taxes because of this unequal tax treatment. Because the number of unmarried couples is growing, over time this unfair treatment will affect millions of families

The Cost to Ocean County of Providing Pension Benefits to Employee's Domestic Partners

As a result of the passage of the Domestic Partnership Act of 2004, counties in New Jersey have the option of extending spousal pension benefits to domestic partners of county employees, just as the state does. One common question related to these benefits concerns their cost to the county, in this case to Ocean County. Based on the current structure of the pension plans that Ocean County employees belong to, and based on data from the State, I estimate that the cost to the county would be less than $70,000 per year. Below I outline the details of how I arrived at this calculation