Healthcare benefits are just part of the benefits offered to domestic partners of employees in US companies. According to some findings, more than 13 percent of the employers in the country were offering benefits to domestic partners and 25 percent of the large corporations with more than 5000 employees offer benefits. These benefits are both soft and hard such as cost-intensive ones that include medical, vision, and dental insurance and pension or retirement benefits. Soft ones on the other hand include bereavement leave, legal services, employee discounts, health and fitness programs, relocation policies, and child care.
Healthcare benefits are offered mostly to heterosexual companies since companies believe that these couples can legally marry. The number of companies offering such benefits has increased dramatically in the last few years.
A domestic partnership is a rising norm these days. Gone are the days when there was a traditional setup with a husband working, wife staying at home taking care of the children. Things have changed to the extent that it is believed that only 10% of all households consist of the traditional setup. Many Americans are choosing to cohabitate. The concept of family has however not changed much. Or at least the US Census Bureau doesn’t see any change in it.
It still defines family as “two or more persons related by birth, marriage or adoption who reside in the same household.”(Patricia Treuthart) As early as 1989, people had started seeing a change in the orthodox definition of family. A survey conducted then showed that more than three-quarters of the respondents defined family as being “a group of people who love and care for one another.”(Treuthart) Only 22 percent felt that family was a “group of peoples related by blood, marriage, or adoption.”(Richardson)
A domestic partnership thus needs to have the following elements for it to be able to qualify as a partnership: “1) the couple live together and have a close, personal relationship; 2) they are responsible for each other’s welfare, as evidenced by financial interdependence; 3) they are not legally married to anyone else; 4) they are not related by blood.”(Sample Proposal for Domestic Partner Benefits)
Companies are increasingly recognizing the emergence of the domestic partnership phenomenon. It is cohabitation with long-term commitment minus the legal status of marriage. For those who wish to apply for health benefits for domestic partners, some eligibility requirements are imposed. These requirements may differ from company to company but contain the following important points: “the parties be at least 18 years old, that each is mentally competent, that the parties not be related by blood ties closer than would bar marriage in the state, and that neither of the parties has an existing marriage or domestic partnership.”(Becker)
Some ordinances also require confirmation of commitment from both partners. They must indicate they are responsible for each other’s welfare and that they share the basic living expenses. The benefits are extended if the two qualify. And they are stopped when one of the partners pulls out or dies. Interestingly after the dissolution of the partnership, new benefits for a new partner cannot be sought for six months after which it can be done.
The private sector started offering these benefits only after the government sector had undertaken them. Since 1982 when it first started, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of companies offering healthcare benefits to domestic partners. But interestingly while people ask for benefits so regularly, very few actually avail it where available.
Costs for benefits extension to DP are much lower than for married couples. Low utilization of DP benefits is a concern because while companies are ready to incur the costs, few are willing to utilize the opportunity. This low use can be attributed to such factors as DPs already receiving benefits from another source i.e. their employer, the employees may not feel that commitment to the DP and are not ready to disclose the relationship, and they may not be willing to take financial responsibility for the partner. There can be many reasons but it has been seen that employees do not use the DP benefits as aggressively as they seek them. For those who actually use it, costs are much lower. This is because eligible employees are often younger and healthier. In addition, children may not be included.
To extend benefits to heterosexual couples is quite a common practice now but the same cannot be said of same-sex couples. I feel that employees in a heterosexual relationship with significant proof of commitment must be found eligible for domestic partner benefits. I cannot vouch for homosexual partners. Employers do not offer such benefits because they fear that costs will be too high because of the possibility of HIV and AIDS-related claims.
Why are domestic partner benefits not offered by all firms? The answer lies in costs concerns as well as fraud provisions. Critics argue that employees may try to cover sick friends and relatives. Though no such cases have been reported there is always a possibility. Cost concerns and potential for abuse is though minimal have still been a dominant factor in employer’s hesitation for the adoption of this policy.
There are laws that can be applied here and several court cases have already appeared. But this is still a confusing situation. Employers have their own valid reasons for denying domestic partner benefits while employees have equally valid reasons to seek benefits. There should be state-level legislation that would clearly mention when domestic partners are eligible for health insurance.
Even though great progress has been made in the area of domestic partnership, not all employers recognize a need to extend such benefits. If employees with non-traditional families are looking for benefits, they must inform the employer and continue to speak for these benefits by highlighting the unfairness and inequities in not offering such benefits. As employees become more aware of compensation differences that accrue because of marital status, they are likely to force the employers into accepting and adopting a DP benefits policy.
Most employees rely on healthcare benefits for themselves and their families. These benefits often form an essential part of an employee’s compensation package and provide financial and emotional support in the area of health care. Wherever we look, there exists some discrimination in this area. Benefits and protections that are offered to married couples are often not extended to unmarried couples. If employers can find a way to offer benefits to non-traditional families of their employees at minimal cost, they will be more willing to offer benefits to domestic partners.
References
Mary Patricia Treuthart, Adopting a More Realistic Definition of “Family,” 26 GONZ. L. REV. 91, 96 (1990/1991).
David G. Richardson, Family Rights for Unmarried Couples, 2 KAN. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 117, 117 (1993).
Lewis Becker, Recognition of Domestic Partnerships by Governmental Entities and Private Employers, 1 NAT’L J. SEXUAL ORIENTATION L. 90, 92 (1995).