2014
This from Politico
The Obama administration cannot enforce the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage requirements against a Catholic nuns’ order for the time being, if the nuns tell the government they object to providing that coverage, the Supreme Court ruled Friday afternoon.
The Supreme Court’s action could defuse for the moment a showdown between religious employers and the federal government over the procedures for providing contraceptive coverage to employees of hospitals, nursing homes and other entities run by religious groups.
For more information… http://www.politico.com
The Supreme Court of the United States of America, really? Don’t you find it absurd that 1⃣ the federal government can and does mandate insurance coverage for contraceptives and 2⃣ the issue needs to be resolved by the SCOTUS? Contraceptives are not health care, contraceptives are not unaffordable or an insurable risk.
How can you insure a risk the insured can decide to take or not? This is like auto insurance for a guy who drives his car in the demolition derby, do ya think there is going to be a claim?
We have descended into the mud pit of political correctness for no good reason other than to beat the drums of war on women.
Her shoes cost $995, but you are paying for her Plan B … that’s fair.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Or we could actually consider facts and realize that providing contraception coverage saves money in the end.
Review of Actuarial Studies
The direct costs of providing contraception as part of a health insurance plan are very low and do not add more than approximately 0.5% to the premium costs per adult enrollee.[6] Studies from three actuarial firms, Buck Consultants, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and the Actuarial Research Corporation (ARC) have estimated the direct costs of providing contraception coverage. In 1998, Buck Consultants estimated that the direct cost of providing contraceptive benefits averaged $21 per enrollee per year.[7] PwC actuaries completed an analysis using more recent, 2003 data from MedStat for the National Business Group on Health, and determined that a broader range of services (contraceptive services, plus lab and counseling services) would cost approximately $41 per year.[8] The most recent actuarial analysis, completed by the Actuarial Research Corporation in July 2011, using data from 2010, estimated a cost of about $26 per year per enrolled female.[9]
However, as indicated by the empirical evidence described above, these direct estimated costs overstate the total premium cost of providing contraceptive coverage. When medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies are taken into account, including costs of prenatal care, pregnancy complications, and deliveries, the net effect on premiums is close to zero.[10],[11] One study author concluded, “The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money.”[12]
When indirect costs such as time away from work and productivity loss are considered, they further reduce the total cost to an employer. Global Health Outcomes developed a model that incorporates costs of contraception, costs of unintended pregnancy, and indirect costs. They find that it saves employers $97 per year per employee to offer a comprehensive contraceptive benefit.[13] Similarly, the PwC actuaries state that after all effects are taken into account, providing contraceptive services is “cost-saving.”[14]
LikeLike
So does changing your oil regularly, does your auto insurance pay for that?
If a plan wants to provide the coverage as a perk, fine, but mandating something that is not a real insurance risk adds costs. Should we assume that just because contraceptives are not paid for by someone else, women are going to get pregnant? Avoiding pregnancy is a personal choice and risk. To say paying for the pill saves money assumes higher pregnancy costs if the pill is not paid for, really? Are most working women that stupid? I don’t think so.
LikeLike