9 - Commentary on Doe v. Mutual of Omaha

Summary

In Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance, a Seventh Circuit case from 1999, the plaintiffs challenged lifetime coverage caps for AIDS-related conditions, which blocked patients with HIV/AIDS from accessing antiretroviral therapies and other lifesaving medical care. Doe and Smith alleged that the caps violated the public accommodations clause of the ADA. The original opinion sided with the insurance company, finding the caps permissible under the ADA, even though the defendant offered no proof they were supported by sound actuarial data. Professor Valarie Blake’s feminist judgment focuses on the plain text of the disability rights statute, relevant legislative history, and valid guidance from the Department of Justice. Blake also highlights the social and cultural context in which gay men and people with AIDS have been subjugated and stigmatized. Professor Christina Ho’s commentary contrasts the disability-rights approach the plaintiffs advanced before the court with the statutory restrictions on health insurance underwriting based on health status-related factors eventually included in the Affordable Care Act passed more than a decade later.