“Free” birth control saves women money … duh?

This is a headline from the New York Times 7-7-15

After Health Care Act, Sharp Drop in Spending on Birth Control

Taking those words literally, a reasonable person might conclude that less money was spent on birth control after Obamacare. In fact what they mean is that women spent less out-of-pocket for birth control because now everyone else is paying for them instead of the women using them. Ah progress.

It also means that because it is now free many women switched to more expensive forms of birth control.

You will also note that now with stuff “free” that the portion of out-of-pocket costs is a lot less. That’s because these relative young women have low health care costs in general.

This whole situation is one of the biggest scams of Obamacare. We are not talking about poor women (who by the way are not eligible for Obamacare), but women of any income most of whom can well afford their birth control.

This is about gaining votes, not better health care and you are footing the bill; birth control is not free. The Affordable Care Act’s birth control provision has lowered the cost of birth control pills to patients by $1.4 billion, according to a new study published in the journal Health Affairs, but someone is  paying that $1.4 billion and it’s you.

While birth control may be “free,”  life-sustaining and life saving medication is not. Is that how to most effectively spend your money? Every time I write on this topic, I get beaten up by women, but you tell me why a woman making $50,000 or $100,000, or more or a family doing the same should have their birth control paid for by someone else while at the same time a woman’s heart medication or diabetes medication costs $20, $30 or more in a co-payment?

Tell me how many non-poor women could not afford $10.00 to $30.00 a month for the pill.  Tell me the logic of choosing this one non-essential, non-health care treatment, affordable prescription to make “free.” 

Is this what we mean by the success of Obamacare? This is like using school funds to build a sports field while ignoring classroom needs. 

NOTE: Every source I found says American workers spend an average of just over $1,000 a year on coffee and the worst group is the Starbucks crowd age 18-34 which spends about $25.00 a week. So while your boss can’t spend $10.00 a month for birth control, she can spend $100 on cappuccino.  What a world? On the other hand, it would be worse for you if you were paying for the coffee instead of the pill. 😛 LOL

New post on Kaiser Health News
Rovner 2 100

Birth Control Coverage Saves Women Significant Money

by Julie Rovner

Women are saving a lot of money as a result of a health law requirement that insurance cover most forms of prescription contraceptives with no additional out-of-pocket costs, according to a study released Tuesday. But the amount of those savings and the speed with which those savings occurred surprised researchers.
The study, in the July issue of the policy journal Health Affairs, found that the average birth control pill user saved $255 in the year after the requirement took effect. The average user of an intrauterine device (IUD) saved $248.

Those savings represented a significant percentage of average out-of-pocket costs.
“These are healthy women and this on average is their No. 1 need from the health care system,” said Nora Becker, an MD-PhD candidate at the University of Pennsylvania and lead author of the study. “On average, these women were spending about 30 to 44 percent of their total out of pocket (health) spending just on birth control.”

The study looked at out-of-pocket spending from nearly 800,000 women between the ages of 13 and 45 from January 2008 through June 2013. For most plans, the requirement began Aug. 1, 2012, or Jan. 1, 2013. So-called “grandfathered” health plans, those that have not substantially changed their benefits since the health law was passed in 2010, are exempt from the mandate, as are a small subset of religious-based plans.

Becker said that while making birth control substantially cheaper may not increase the number of women who use it, the new requirements could well shift the type of birth control they use to longer-acting, more effective methods like the IUD. “If prior to the ACA a woman was facing $10 to $30 a month for the pill but hundreds of dollars upfront for an IUD and now both are free, we might see a different choice,” she said.
Researchers also found that while out-of-pocket spending dropped dramatically for most types of prescription contraceptive methods — “the majority of women were paying nothing by June 2013” –spending barely budged for the vaginal ring or hormonal patch.

That could be because under the original rules, many insurers declined to make the ring or patch free, since, like pills, they are essentially hormone delivery methods. Earlier this year, the Obama administration issued a clarification saying that while insurers do not have to offer every brand of every method, they do have to cover at least one product in each category, including rings and patches.
Julie Rovner | July 7, 2015 at 4:22 pm | Categories: Cost and Quality, Public Health, Syndicate, The Health Law | URL: http://khne.ws/1CZ0ojz

http://khn.org/news/birth-control-coverage-saves-women-significant-money/