Today GLAD filed a requête en jugement sommaire dans une affaire inédite contestant la discrimination à l'encontre d'un homme homosexuel qui prend le médicament Truvada comme prophylaxie pré-exposition (PrEP) pour prévenir la transmission du VIH.

The plaintiff in Doe c. Mutual of Omaha affirme que le refus de la compagnie d'assurance de lui vendre une assurance soins de longue durée repose sur l'exclusion catégorique de toute personne séronégative prenant la PrEP. Doe affirme que l'exclusion générale de Mutual constitue une discrimination fondée sur l'orientation sexuelle, car 80% des utilisateurs de la PrEP sont des hommes homosexuels. Il porte également plainte pour discrimination fondée sur un handicap perçu.

“There is no legitimate reason for Mutual’s exclusionary rule. It has no business rationale and flies in the face of common sense,” said Bennett Klein, Senior Attorney and Director of GLAD’s AIDS Law Project.

“Mutual would insure the same person not on PrEP — who presents the higher risk of HIV. Mutual’s policy is illogical and contrary to how it treats other medications. The only explanation for the exclusion of people who take a drug associated with gay men is that it is based on aversion to gay male sexuality and nothing else. In our view, it’s pure homophobia.”

In depositions cited by GLAD, Mutual’s own experts and its medical director made multiple admissions, among them:

  • PrEP is “highly effective” against HIV;
  • Mutual’s policy is contrary to its stated underwriting goal of reducing the number of people with HIV among its insureds; and
  • While Mutual excludes applicants who take PrEP as directed and are at low risk for HIV, the company sells insurance to applicants who do not take PrEP and are thus at higher risk for HIV.

Mutual of Omaha has variously claimed that its treatment of people taking Truvada is justified because of concerns about adherence to the treatment and because of the lack of long-term data on the effects of Truvada. But these rationales are contradicted by Mutual’s provision of long-term care insurance to applicants taking drugs for other illnesses.

This case, the first to challenge the anti-gay policy that is widespread in the industry, has brought national prominence to the issue and prompted some state insurance agencies to consider action. In June, the New York Department of Financial Services issued a directif que l’exclusion des personnes sous PrEP de l’assurance vie, invalidité et soins de longue durée constitue une discrimination illégale.

Déposée auprès du tribunal de district américain du district du Massachusetts, la requête réfute également les objections juridictionnelles de Mutual.