Human Rights Commission: "Refusal of Insurance Underwriting Due to ADHD Treatment Is Discrimination"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Donghoon Jeong] The National Human Rights Commission has ruled that refusing insurance underwriting solely because a person is taking medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) constitutes discrimination.

On the 18th, the Human Rights Commission recommended that Insurance Company A establish reasonable underwriting criteria to avoid excluding individuals with ADHD from insurance coverage.

A complainant, Mr. A (33), who is taking psychiatric medication for ADHD treatment, attempted to purchase CI (Critical Illness) insurance from Insurance Company A in December 2017 to cover diseases such as cancer. However, Insurance Company A rejected his application, citing his use of psychiatric medication unrelated to cancer as the reason, which Mr. A claimed was discriminatory and filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

Insurance Company A responded, stating, "To maintain fairness among policyholders by charging the same premium for the same risk and to prevent losses, we classify and evaluate the risk of applicants to determine whether to underwrite insurance contracts." They added, "In cases like the complainant’s, where there is an active condition that has not been cured, it is difficult to propose underwriting conditions based on an accurate risk assessment at the time of application." Furthermore, they explained, "We refused insurance enrollment for ADHD patients due to the possibility of comorbidities such as depression and potential cardiac side effects from treatment medications. However, if the complainant submits a medical opinion from their primary physician regarding treatment history and improvement, we can decide on insurance eligibility through medical consultation."

The Human Rights Commission’s Discrimination Remedy Committee judged that "Insurance Company A’s blanket refusal to underwrite insurance without evaluating the complainant’s specific circumstances based on reasonable criteria is an excessive restriction," and determined that it constitutes "discriminatory conduct infringing on the right to equality without reasonable grounds," as defined in Article 2, Clause 3 of the National Human Rights Commission Act.