Search Terms: Contraceptive coverage
Document 46 of 58.
Copyright 1999 The San Diego Union-Tribune
The San Diego Union-Tribune
View Related Topics
May
14, 1999, Friday
SECTION:
OPINION Pg. B-10:1,7,8; B-14:2,3
LENGTH:
450 words
HEADLINE:
Insurers vs. women; Viagra prescriptions are covered but not The Pill
BODY:
It doesn't make sense for insurance companies to cover Viagra and abortion, but not prescription contraceptives. It's a logical disconnect that turns public policy on its head.
And yet, that's exactly what is happening in California. While some HMOs cover birth control for women, others don't. And most traditional fee-for- service plans don't. But many of the same insurers cover Viagra, which counters male impotence, as part of their outpatient prescription drug benefits. And they cover abortion in some cases under major medical coverage.
This is an inequity that amounts to discrimination against women. The American College of Obstetricians calls it gender bias, and urges that policies covering prescriptions include contraceptives such as birth control pills.
A bill called the Women's Contraceptive Equity Act by state Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Daly City, would do just that. Speier argues this is not just a family planning issue, but an economic one. Since many insurance plans don't provide coverage for birth control, and birth control pills and Norplant are prescribed for women only, women wind up paying 63 percent more in out-of- pocket prescriptions costs than men do.
The public policy implications are also troubling. Insurers in California cover drugs that facilitate sex (Viagra), but not drugs that prevent pregnancy (birth control pills). And they cover procedures to terminate unwanted pregnancies, but not prescriptions to prevent them. Most Californians would agree that birth control is far preferable to unwanted pregnancy or abortion, not to mention the huge social costs of unintended births.
Opponents of Speier's measure say the Legislature doesn't mandate coverage for Viagra or abortions, and so it shouldn't mandate coverage for contraceptives. However, the state Department of Corporations, which regulates HMOs, has ordered the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to cover all sexual dysfunction treatments, including Viagra. That ruling could eventually effect every health plan in the state. So, while the Legislature may not mandate Viagra, another branch of state government does. The effect is the same, and so is the inequity.
An insurance industry association estimated that the cost of
contraceptive coverage
would be about $16 per year per employee. But covering contraceptives is much cheaper than covering prenatal and postnatal care in unwanted pregnancies. Viagra, on the other hand, costs about $10 a pill.
The failure of insurers to cover relatively cheap prescription contraceptives while covering expensive Viagra is an unfair bias against women. The Women's Contraceptive Equity Act would correct that wrong.
LANGUAGE:
ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE:
May 15, 1999
Document 46 of 58.
Search Terms: Contraceptive coverage
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase:
Copyright© 2000, LEXIS-NEXIS, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
