Some States Now Require Contraceptive Coverage


Beth Taggart pays $35 a month out of her own pocket for
contraceptives because her insurance does not cover
birth control pills.

That
doesn't seem quite fair to her, considering the sort of things
her health plan does cover.
"When I think that Viagra is covered, and the consequence of
Viagra is not covered, it's hard to believe," said the 40-year-old
former state employee and mother of a baby daughter. "Plus, it's a
health concern, especially for people who just had babies and don't
want to get pregnant again within the first year."
Lawmakers are listening: The debate over whether health plans
should be required to include contraceptive coverage has moved into
nearly all state legislatures
This year alone, at least 19 states, including Ohio, introduced
more than 60
bills regarding insurance for
birth control pills and devices.

Three of those, New York,
Arizona and Massachusetts, enacted laws, bringing to 20 the
number of states that have passed such measures over the past
five years.
Most of the laws require health insurance policies that cover
prescription drugs to cover prescription contraceptives, too. Some
states include an exemption for employers who object to such
coverage for religious reasons.
"This momentum underscores that failure to cover contraceptives
is illegal sex discrimination, and people now are recognizing
that," said Elizabeth Cavendish, legal director of the National
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League in Washington.


The debate is only a few years old, having taken a back seat for
decades to abortion rights. Pressure for contraception coverage
grew sharply in the late 1990s when Viagra went on the market and
insurers quickly covered it, but not such things as birth control
pills, diaphragms, intrauterine devices or Norplant.
Two years ago, the U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
issued an opinion that said not providing insurance for
contraceptives amounts to sex discrimination. And two federal court
rulings last year cited the opinion.
Federal legislation to force insurance companies to offer
contraception coverage has languished in Congress since 1997. As a
result, most of the action is taking place at the state level.


Ohio state Sen. Priscilla Mead, a Republican, introduced a bill
last fall that went nowhere.
"Birth control is a basic part of women's health care that is
used during much of a woman's life. I have spent about 4 1/2 years
of my life bearing children and over 30 years of my life trying not
to have children," said Mead, a 58-year-old mother of four.


Women's groups, gynecologists and obstetricians argue that
affordable pregnancy prevention is a medical necessity and that it
can ultimately save employers money by reducing the number of
unwanted pregnancies.
Opponents of the bills -- mainly insurance companies and some
employers -- say that what to insure is a decision best left to
employers. They say that forcing the issue could lead some
employers not to offer insurance at all.
"Employers shouldn't be told what type of coverage they have to
purchase," said Larry Akey, spokesman of the Health Insurance
Association of
America.

"The problem is that
when you force an employer to do something, everything comes
with a cost. As mandates pile one on top of the other, it pretty
much reaches a breaking point."
Associated Press - 12/21/2002
Topic: Population

[ Comment, Edit or Article Submission ]



.