In this issue, my co-authors and I examined gaps in insurance coverage for treating vitiligo and hypothesized that these have disproportionate impact on the health and well-being of children of color.1 We did not address the issue of what legal, moral, and ethical obligations health insurers have to cover care and treatment for specific disorders with disparate health impacts, such as vitiligo. Health insurers are licensed and regulated by the states in which they operate, although federal regulations, such as those spelled out in the Affordable Care Act may, in some instances, take precedence, such as the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions. To my knowledge, no regulations, federal, or state mandate coverage for this condition. Although many health care insurers have codes of ethics, several of which are available online, most are boilerplate documents on corporate compliance, conflicts of interest, and confidentiality and do not mention equity, fairness of coverage policies or decisions, or even deal with coverage-related issues. Little has been written addressing this issue. Levine et al published five principles to ensure fairness in coverage decisions: they should be transparent to all those affected by the process; participatory, involving stakeholders in a meaningful way; equitable and consistent resulting in “similar decisions under similar circumstances”; sensitive to value, “taking into account the net health outcomes of services and technologies under consideration and the resources needed to achieve these outcomes”; and compassionate, being “flexible [and] responsive to individual values and priorities and attentive to the most vulnerable individuals and those with critical needs.”2 One argument used to justify denial of coverage of certain conditions is that it is a “zero-sum game,” that is, if something is added, something must be dropped. It is a spurious argument, however. If it were truly a zero-sum game, every time a new drug or technology became covered, something would have to be dropped. Medical coverage policies are not static. Furthermore, is it fair that conditions producing permanent, disfiguring, red patches on white skin (port-wine stains) be covered while those that produce equally impactful permanent white discoloration on dark skin are not? So, are there moral and ethical grounds for covering the treatment of vitiligo? Based on the principles of consistency and fairness, even given limited resources, one would expect diseases that significantly affect quality of life to be covered. Based on the principles of equity and fairness, diseases that disproportionately affect the vulnerable and disadvantaged, or disproportionately affect one gender or certain ethnic or racial groups, deserve special consideration. There is no existing universally agreed upon set of rules or duties for health insurers regarding coverage policies or appeals. Because vitiligo is manifested by altered outward appearance rather than pain, itch or functional limitation does not in any way justify the morality of not covering its treatment. No reasonable person would consider an individual (or by extension, a corporation or public entity) who was unfair to minorities and the disadvantaged, perpetuated inequities or was inconsistent in actions and beliefs to be virtuous or ethical.