Israeli Court Approves Class Action Against Health Funds Over Gender Discrimination

A Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court has approved a class-action lawsuit against Israel's four major health maintenance organizations (HMOs), Clalit, Maccabi, Meuhedet, and Leumit, alleging gender discrimination in their supplementary health insurance plans (Shlvan). The lawsuit, filed four years ago, claims that the HMOs unfairly limit services and reimbursements related to pregnancy, childbirth, and newborn care exclusively to women.

The plaintiffs, a group of men insured under these supplementary plans, include both heterosexual men whose partners have already utilized their pregnancy and birth benefits, and men in same-sex relationships. They argue that their requests for reimbursements for services like "sleep counseling" for infants have been denied because the coverage is stipulated for mothers only within the HMOs' regulations.

According to the plaintiffs, these regulations constitute systematic and discriminatory gender-based discrimination, preventing men from receiving financial reimbursements for services related to pregnancy, childbirth, and the health and well-being of their children. They estimate that at least 625,000 men have been affected over the seven years preceding the lawsuit's filing.

The HMOs defended their policies, asserting that limiting pregnancy and birth services to women is based on relevant physical and medical differences and therefore does not constitute prohibited discrimination. They also argued that their supplementary plans operate on an actuarial balance, and approving the lawsuit would lead to budget deficits and increased membership fees for all.

Maccabi HMO noted that it had already applied to amend its "Maccabi Sheli" plan regarding sleep counseling and postpartum nurse visits, rendering the current dispute partially moot. The Ministry of Health stated that while it previously approved the HMOs' regulations, it now acknowledges potential legal issues with exclusively offering post-birth services, such as sleep counseling, to women, suggesting a need for revision.

Judge Ofira Dagan-Tuchmacher ruled that the plaintiffs had presented a sufficient factual and legal basis for the class-action to proceed. She indicated that services like sleep counseling and postpartum nurse visits, when focused on newborn care, appear to benefit both parents equally and should not be restricted based on gender, potentially reinforcing harmful stereotypes. The judge also acknowledged that the HMOs acted in good faith based on regulatory approvals and prevailing social norms, suggesting that if they had anticipated covering both parents from the outset, the benefits might have been more limited or membership fees higher.