Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    Insurers must cover birth control with no copays

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

    The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women's preventive care under President Barack Obama's health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

    "These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

    The new requirements will take effect Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases. Tens of millions of women are expected to gain coverage initially, and that number is likely to grow with time. At first, some plans may be exempt due to a complex provision of the health care law known as the "grandfather" clause. But those even plans could face pressure from their members to include the new benefit.

    Sebelius acted after a near-unanimous recommendation last month from a panel of experts convened by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, which advises the government. Panel chairwoman Linda Rosenstock, dean of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that prevention of unintended pregnancies is essential for the psychological, emotional and physical health of women.

    As recently as the 1990s, many health insurance plans didn't even cover birth control. Protests, court cases, and new state laws led to dramatic changes. Today, almost all plans cover prescription contraceptives — with varying copays. Medicaid, the health care program for low-income people, also covers contraceptives.

    Indeed, a government study last summer found that birth control use is virtually universal in the United States, according to a government study issued last summer. More than 90 million prescriptions for contraceptives were dispensed in 2009, according the market analysis firm INS health. Generic versions of the pill are available for as little as $9 a month. Still, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Many are among women using some form of contraception, and forgetting to take the pill is a major reason.

    Preventing unwanted pregnancies is only one goal of the new requirement. Contraception can help make a woman's next pregnancy healthier by spacing births far enough apart, generally 18 months to two years. Research links closely spaced births to a risk of such problems as prematurity, low birth weight, even autism. Research has shown that even modest copays for medical care can discourage use.

    In a nod to social and religious conservatives, the rules issued Monday by Sebelius include a provision that would allow religious institutions to opt out of offering birth control coverage. However, many conservatives are supporting legislation by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., that would codify a range of exceptions to the new health care law on religious and conscience grounds.

    "It's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough," said Jeanne Monahan, a policy expert for the conservative Family Research Council. As it now stands, the conscience clause offers only a "fig leaf" of protection, she added, because it may not cover faith-based groups engaged in social action and other activities that do not involve worship.

    Although the new women's preventive services will be free of any additional charge to patients, somebody will have to pay. The cost will be spread among other people with health insurance, resulting in slightly higher premiums. That may be offset to some degree with savings from diseases prevented, or pregnancies that are planned to minimize any potential ill effects to the mother and baby.

    The administration did allow insurers some leeway in determining what they will cover. For example, health plans will be able to charge copays for branded drugs in cases where a generic version is just as effective and safe for the patient.

    The requirement applies to all forms of birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration. That includes the pill, intrauterine devices, the so-called morning-after pill, and newer forms of long-acting implantable hormonal contraceptives that are becoming widely used in the rest of the industrialized world.

    Coverage with no copays for the morning-after pill is likely to become the most controversial part of the change. The FDA classifies Plan B and Ella as birth control, but some religious conservatives see the morning-after drugs as abortion drugs. The rules HHS issued Monday do not require coverage of RU-486 and other drugs to chemically induce an abortion.

    Advocates say the majority of women will be covered once the requirement takes effect in 2013, although some insurance plans may opt to offer the benefit earlier. Aside from the conscience clause, the only other major exemption is for so-called "grandfathered" plans, many of which are offered by large employers. With the passage of time, however, many currently grandfathered plans are likely to lose that designation as they make routine changes affecting their benefits. Consumers should check with their health insurance plan administrator.

     

    1,529 comments

    • Sixeyess4dinner  •  6 mths ago
      © ♫♪♫
    • Sixeyess4dinner  •  6 mths ago
      ♫♪♫
    • Sixeyess4dinner  •  6 mths ago
    • Sixeyess4dinner  •  6 mths ago
      §
    • Sixeyess4dinner  •  6 mths ago
      one two three
    • Sixeyess4dinner  •  6 mths ago
      test
    • Lita  •  6 mths ago
      So you don't pay a co-pay. Your premiums go up. People you are still paying.
    • one of the ninety nine  •  6 mths ago
      Just hope the politicians get some because we don't need any more politicians trying to run this country.
    • one of the ninety nine  •  6 mths ago
      Why do we worry about birth control..? There's money spitting out them kids..Who's your daddy?
    • ja  •  6 mths ago
      in a neighborhood near me, babies are almost like trophys to the teen girls..They push them around in these nice stroolers..all paid for by our tax dollars
    • jake  •  6 mths ago
      I would think that insurance companies would gladly pay 100% for birth control. It's a lot cheaper than paying for that same woman to have prenatal care and give birth.
    • track czar  •  6 mths ago
      Another good bet would be offering welfare sows a one-time, tax-free payment of $20,000 cash to get a hysterectomy. Each of their precious little miracles costs my state around $280,000 to raise over 18 years, and then there's always the cost of prison afterwards
    • Mitch  •  6 mths ago
      So really you will still be paying for them when your premium goes up slightly....
    • sumunownguy  •  6 mths ago
      But the birth rate in poor neigthborhoods will still manage to increase. And there will still be no fathers present. This will not matter where we need it to matter until there is no increase in welfare funds for additional children.
    • flfleas  •  6 mths ago
      Bend over mr. and mrs. taxpayer. You're getting it where the sun doesn't shine again. So glad they passed the balanced budget crap.
    • track czar  •  6 mths ago
      I'm not following the logic here. Medicaid already covers birth control in my state, and at my insurance company's copay for the generic birth control shot is $20 plus a small injection fee and there are a number of county programs that will provide birth control to the unimsured for next to nothing, so I'm unclear as to exactly whom this is supposed to benefit.
    • gigimama  •  6 mths ago
      "Slightly" higher premiums...heh.
    • WBrother  •  6 mths ago
      Weird how all this free transfer of wealth stuff is only for a very limited segment of citizens. I guess another trillion in debt for free breast pumps is a good idea? I used to care about all this. Now I am working a temp job, cannot afford COBRA health coverage for me and my wife and daughter, and job prospects are slim. I paid into SS, medicare, federal, state and local taxes for my 30 years of employment, and I and my family will probably not see any of it back. I used to volunteer to help feed and build houses for the poor. Then my government (both parties) voted in NAFTA, gave tax breaks for the mega rich, over-regulated jobs out of the U.S. and sold out to the bankers and Chinese. They also devalued my income and savings by over-borrowing to keep themselves in office and in power. Now as I slip from middle class to well-educated bag-boy, I cannot afford to go to the doctor, dentist, etc. anymore. I guess I will just grit my teeth and bear it. But hey, some liberal gynecologists will get rich implanting all these free IUD's and doling out morning-after abortion pills, so at least the story ends well for some. At least I can still vote. We need to get rid of most politicians in Washington, and all the beaurocrats.
    • MikeB  •  6 mths ago
      Of course there's a scam here somewhere. It doesn't help people on private plans because their premiums will rise. I wonder how it affects the premiums of people on government assistance? I wouldn't be surprised if these people benefit because they pay little or no premium? There's always a hidden spread the wealth around element with Obama.
    • Donato  •  6 mths ago
      The problem with Obama care is that it is taking a one size fits all approach. My 28 year old son was able to acquire a basic health care plan for a reasonable price that would cover him in case he had a serious medical issue. It did not cover office calls or drugs. However now he has to pay 28% more this year because his health carrier is being forced to add additional coverage that he does not want. He was willing to pay for the one or two office calls he has a year and his occasional $4.00 prescription anti-biotic at Wal-Mart. Now he must pay more every month because of a government mandate. This makes no sense.
    [ [ [['Dekraai', 10]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/photos/mourners-remember-seal-beach-shooting-victims-1318620627-slideshow/', 'Click image to see more photos', 'http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/3/2c/32c8e92d889f42edb719cb5257afdf4e.jpeg', '461', ' ', 'Reuters/Lori Shepler', ], [ [['iPhone 4SXXXXXXX', 11]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/photos/thousands-line-up-for-apple-s-iphone-4s-1318602841-slideshow/', 'Click image to see more photos', 'http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/f/4f/f4f15e8f6f323f5386dc9fdf9e15dca8.jpeg', '500', ' ', 'AP/Kirsty Wigglesworth', ] ]
    [ [ [['xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx', 11]], '27013743', '0' ], [ [['keyword', 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999]], 'videoID', '1', 'overwrite-pre-description', 'overwrite-link-string', 'overwrite-link-url' ] ]
    Loading...