I have been called a lot of names because of my position on free contraceptives, including caveman. I have been accused of insulting women and more. All because I don’t think insurance was intended to pay for a low cost, voluntarily used prescription and more important I think it is wrong to single out this one prescription and require it to be covered and free to the user.
I also think it reprehensible for Democratic politicians to characterize opposition to this provision of Obamacare as a war on women, as preventing women from obtaining health care, as coming between a woman and her doctor. None of that is true.
Rather than debating the merits and of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case, we should be debating the federal governments role in mandating any level of coverage let alone a single pill. All we have heard about is competition, more insurers in the exchanges will compete and lower prices and improve all aspects of health care we were told. Well, let them compete then rather than tying their hands with an array of mandates. Theoretically consumers will demand certain levels of coverage and be willing to pay for it. Some people actually believe because contraceptives and other services are free that insurers are picking up the bill. Of course that is not true, all costs are reflected in premiums paid by the insured and by employers who self-insure their benefits.
Frankly I don’t see the justification for the federal government to mandate coverage for any given drug let alone one that is not intended to treat an illness. If a plan wants to add to its costs and premiums by covering the pill, Retina A for adults or ED medication, etc. (thereby enhancing their competitive status) that’s fine, but a federal law to do so has another agenda … appealing to a sought after voting block. Now our Congress is devoting time and resources to pass a new law circumventing the SCOTUS. Is this our highest national priority?
In the past when a health plan offered prescription coverage, generally including contraceptives, it covered any FDA approved drug for the condition approved by the FDA. In the past some plans may have limited coverage or required use of mail order services to save money. The plans I operated decades ago covered birth control pills through mail order and covered ED meds with a limit of ten per month. Why? Because they were both elective in nature and were not treating an illness although that’s not technically correct in the case of the ED Rx. All the medications were subject to the same co-pay or coinsurance. Why is that no longer fair?
That’s all in the past. Now we are in a new era of entitlement. Many women feel they are entitled to free birth control. What else are we all entitled to that is “free?” I guess one could argue that without free ED medication there is no need for free contraceptives … let’s not go there.
What upsets me more than anything is the vehement defense of this aspect of the law with no connection to the fact that heart medication, insulin, blood pressure medication and all other medication require a co-pay. How is that defensible?
Whether or not people (in this case women) want to admit it, this all comes down to spending their money or someone else’s money. We all have finite resources and must choose how we spend those resources. If a fifty-year old man or women must spend some of those resources each month for prescription co-pays, why in the world does that same logic not apply to a thirty-year old woman whose only prescription may be birth control?
And what about men? If anyone still doubts that this is political, consider this.
Is birth control covered for men in health insurance plans?
No. Only women’s birth control is covered. Health insurance companies do not have to pay for services related to a man’s reproductive capacity, such as condoms and vasectomies. In some states, Medicaid provides family planning services and supplies to eligible men and women under the state plan. Contact your local state Medicaid agency to see if you qualify for coverage for family planning services. WebMd
One final point. The idea that adding contraceptive coverage (and “free”) saves an employer or insurer money because of avoided pregnancies is not supported by the evidence. For that to be true a large number of women would be becoming pregnant simply because they did not want to pay for their contraception even though they could afford it. That seems highly unlikely. In addition, since the vast majority of employers and most health plans already covered contraceptives with a co-pay, requiring free contraceptives definitely adds additional cost.
Additionally, contraception is not the same as contraceptive coverage. In part because it is so cost-effective, most people are willing to pay for contraception with their own money, if they can afford to. (Many Medicaid-eligible individuals perhaps cannot, but most employed people probably can.) Insurers benefit from this, because every pregnancy avoided is one less they have to pay for.
Therefore, when employer-sponsored insurers pick up the tab for contraception, not very many more pregnancies are avoided — most people were already using and paying for contraception. According to the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, though the proportion of Americans with no cost-sharing for contraceptives rose in 2013 to 50 percent from 20 percent, prescriptions written for contraceptive medications increased only 4.6 percent.
via Does Birth Control Coverage Pay for Itself? Maybe Not – NYTimes.com.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 