The insurance industry has in the last couple of weeks faced growing claims of discrimination against certain groups of people, based on their age or medical condition.

Health insurance, which is a key issue that has sparked complaints, was said to be made beyond the reach of elderly people in terms of its prohibitive cost or deliberate unavailability. Car and travel insurance have also been found to be subject of discriminatory practices, leaving campaigners fuming with anger.

In the case of health insurance, which is the focus of this piece, even in the NHS prejudice against the aged is said to have reached intolerable level. For instance, these patients are often reminded that their health condition was as a result of their age and sometimes refused treatment.

The Association of British Insurance (ABI), in a bid to remould the impression of people and campaigners regarding the accusation of unfair treatment levelled against its members, denied that their members were unfair to certain groups of people. They argued that rather discriminating against, they only take account of risk.

While they may have their reasons for being in denial of the accusation, one still needs to be cautious in criticising them, as insurance entails taking risks and knowing the level of risk they are insuring people for may not be entirely out of place. What may be inappropriate is when people’s conditions are used as a yardstick for ripping them off or denying them insurance coverage at a realistic price.

However, groups like Help the Aged, disagree with this claim, and insist that the so-called risk assessments were not often based on strong evidence, but involved arbitrary cut-off points and flawed assumptions, instead.

In the above context the case of 76-year-old David Clark becomes a clear point of reference. Speaking to the BBC, the campaigner against age discrimination told of his experience when he was told travel insurance policy for him, at 75, would cost £175 to America. He could not travel then and when he turned 76 he wanted the same policy under similar circumstances but was told it would cost £831.
Irked by what he heard he wondered why, given no change in his circumstances, including health, except the fact that he was a year older, he had to pay a lot more to get the same insurance policy.

Work places are not devoid of this problem. Particularly, employers are said to be in the habit of taking out private medical or health insurance for younger employees. But older employees are denied this benefit simply because of their age. This could lead to age discrimination accusations for which the employers could be found wanting, experts recently warned.

As people complain about these discriminatory practices in the insurance industry and the wider UK society, the government had been keen to respond. Last week, a new law to encourage only positive discrimination but outlaw the kind of clear prejudice explained in this article was announced by Equalities Minister Harriet Harman.

It came at no better time as the issue was already assuming a serious dimension with campaigners and insurers trading accusations and counter accusations.

The bill will play a crucial role in presenting the picture of a government eager to craft a fairer society. But its success in achieving its main goals will depend largely on how much companies, organisation and individuals see it a means to promoting equality and fairness, and not baffling them with constraint that would act obstacles to the success of their business.