Should insurance be required by law to pay for female contraception?

[Lynda/WA]

Oregon is considering legistation to require health insurance to pay for female contraception. Do you feel it should be law?

I don't want it law. At first I thought it would be a cost effective measure for insurances. When I was military most female contraceptives were covered. Tubals, b.c. pill, depo provera to name a few. I know condoms, and the sponge weren't. I always thought it was because it was cheaper to cover that then to pay for labor/delivery/ and healthcare for a child. Of course, the average age of those in the military is probably younger than most companies.

Some of the calls made me question whether it's cost effective for a company. There were people calling in saying they had been required to pay for maternity insurance by there company at an extra 50$ a month. This was upsetting people that were past childbearing age or had already taken positive steps to prevent a pregnancy. They were upset at having to pay extra just to make the program cheaper for those it would effect.

Here's an example of how I think this law could hurt. Let's say my DH's families small business bought insurance. By law they would be required to cover female contraception. My MIL has hit menopause. I and my SIL had a tubal. My other BIL had a vasectomy. We would be required to provide contraception for a group of workers were no-one needed it!

Do you think it should be law to cover it?

[angie r]

I always felt that it was odd for insurance companies to cover delivery, etc. and not contraceptives. In the same line some won't pay for preventive mammograms, but cover you if you have cancer. It seems that it would be less expensive for the mammogram and early stage treatment than end stage??

My insurance company through dh's company covers the contraceptives and childbirth. When my SIL bought her own insurance she had the option to pay for "childbirth." Another friend of mine added "childbirth" to her insurance before getting pregnant, but she couldn't get pregnant and have it be covered for a certain amount of time. In the long run it was almost less expensive to pay out of pocket for the delivery than to pay the insurance premium.

[Mickey]

I think it should be law.

Regarding forcing people to carry the coverage, I believe that if the law were passed, it would be part of the plan, like x-rays, blood tests, vaccinations, pap smears. And the overall rates will probably be adjusted accordingly (the insurance companies won't eat the cost), but that would happen for any coverage that's being made standard. Mammograms weren't covered for a long time, but the fact that they are covered more often now probably did increase overall insurance costs, but that isn't a reason for it not to be a standard covered procedure.

We do own our own business and if we didn't have any women employed by the company, I wouldn't expect the OB/GYN coverage to be removed from our policy and credit for that coverage to be given to us. You'd be looking at a la carte medical coverage if that were the case.

My insurance company says it doesn't cover birth control, but it does. I went on birth control pills to regulate my cycle and try to straighten out my hormonal problems. I feel great since I started them--no pms, no agitated, teary time before my period. Why should I be denied a medication that helps me because it's primarily used as a contraceptive?

Weight loss drugs aren't normally covered either, which is fine--appetite suppressants aren't really a necessity. BUT, if a weight loss drug can be used to lower cholesterol or help medically in some other way, I think it should be covered.

[Amy2]

I think we can get into trouble with the "Well, I don't need that specific coverage, so why should I have to pay for it for others" attitude. For the good of society as a whole, I think birth control should be covered. The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the better. IMHO.

After our baby was born, I wanted to get an IUD. It cost somewhere around $500.00. Insurance wouldn't cover it, but it WOULD cover DH's vasectomy which was also $500.00. This makes no sense to me.

Also, it makes me insane that some companies will cover Viagra, but not birth control. Hello? What's up with that?

Amy

[jbaxter]

i think insurance should cover contraception - contraception is a whole lot cheaper then pregnancylabor delivery. also i thinks its a crock that alot of the insurance companies that don't do conception do do viagra.

[kat]

After our baby was born, I wanted to get an IUD. It cost somewhere around $500.00. Insurance wouldn't cover it, but it WOULD cover DH's vasectomy which was also $500.00. This makes no sense to me.

Also, it makes me insane that some companies will cover Viagra, but not birth control. Hello? What's up with that?

It's a man's world. Talk about expensive health insurance look at what teachers have to pay. Remember this is a profession of mostly women in their child-bearing years. We have great health insurance through dh's work, and it's unbelievably cheaper.

I too think that contraceptions should be covered as with other preventative measures like pap smears and mamograms. Dh's insurance pays 100% of preventative measures.

I get really upset when different insurance companies come to school each year and try to sell "disease specific" insurance policies. If your health insurance doesn't cover all "health" issues it isn't worth much.

[Lynda/WA]

Ref - viagra vs female contraception. The talk show host was asked about viagra. He said he feels it is govered since it is used to make a non-functioning body part work. By the same token he said all fertility treatments should be covered since they also are to make a non-functioning body part(s) work (They frequently aren't). On the other hand, taking the pill is basically preventing a body part from working the way nature intended.

Ref - using the pill for a non-contaceptive purpose. I think most insurances cover the pill if used to *fix* your cycle or for endrimetiousis (sp). In that case it's perscribed for a medical condition and the contraceptive effects are a side benefit.

Why haven't I heard anyone suggest condoms should be covered also? Not only do they prevent pregnancy but also disease? In fact since they are dual purpose how about only covering condoms/spermacide and not covering the IUD and other *female* contraceptions that do nothing to prevent STDs?

I'm in favor if having a variety of health coverages available. Let those who use it decide which coverage they want. More money for more coverage or less money for less coverage. I hate the government telling me what I have to buy.