Are oral contraceptives healthcare?

Nurses Activism

Published

My fiance is very angry to mandate that oral contraceptives should be paid for by health insurance. I feel it is a woman's right, and it is a medication, in additional to medical uses besides preventing pregnancy. But is it a health care issue to prevent pregnancy, like a medication that treats a disease, such as insulin? Or is that beside the point, because it is a choice? It is a useful medication for the personal choice of deciding when and if a woman will conceive. It will save millions of dollars in healthcare for the cost of unwanted deliveries, illnesses during pregnancy, not to mention the savings for raising children, their healthcare and education. Your respectful opinions are appreciated.

If it requires a doctor's prescription, then it counts as healthcare.

On the "flip side". Insurance doesn't, that I know of, pay for condoms. It may (or may not) pay for other forms of birth control. While I think it should.

(Health insurance doesn't cover condoms because they are OTC, same as health insurance doesn't pay for aspirin, Tylenol or other OTC meds -- only Rx medications/products/services.)

How has the human race survived to this point without universal coverage of prescription contraceptives? And why should first dollar payment for this service trump coverage for other services that are immediately life saving, such as trauma care, bypass surgery or cancer treatment?

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Has someone suggested that Rx contraceptives should be covered by health insurance but not trauma care, bypass surgery, or cancer tx?? How would coverage of contraceptives "trump" those kinds of care?

How has the human race survived to this point without universal coverage of prescription contraceptives?

I don't see how this is at all relevant...aren't we supposed to be improving the human experience with our increased scientific and medical knowledge?

And why should first dollar payment for this service trump coverage for other services that are immediately life saving, such as trauma care, bypass surgery or cancer treatment?

It shouldn't trump payment for those services, it should be covered as well as those services.

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.

Contraceptives "trump" almost all other aspects of healthcare (as mandated in Obamacare) because they are to receive first dollar, 100% coverage in all plans nationwide, meaning that the subscriber will obtain them at no cost.

That differs from almost all other health care services, which may or may not be covered under a policy, and if covered, are subject to deductibles, co-insurance, co-pays, etc.

I understand that many women find prescription contraceptives to be an improvement to their quality of life, and don't begrudge anyone that. But, for the life of me, I don't understand how or why a health issue that is not a life or death matter should be given a higher priority than those that are.

And setting the religious exemption issue aside, there are individuals who don't want or need contraceptive coverage. My childbearing abilities are long past. Why shouldn't I be allowed to choose a policy tailored to my personal needs that excludes contraception coverage, but covers something else? Obamacare does not allow that.

I think the issue is that you're conceiving of "health care" as services that are provided to people who are seriously ill - that doesn't have to be the definition of health care. These services that are receiving total coverage under the Affordable Care Act are Preventative Services - including contraceptives, well-woman gynecology visits, screening for gestational diabetes, immunizations, HIV testing, cholesterol screenings, and many others. You can read about them at Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act | HealthCare.gov.

The idea is to be moving away from a system that simply treats people's illnesses when they're already so sick that they need extensive and costly procedures, towards one that first protects and promotes health, and then treats illness when it arises (ya know, like the definition of NURSING). ;)

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
How has the human race survived to this point without universal coverage of prescription contraceptives?

I apologize for this snarky remark. It does nothing to further the debate. But it does sum up my frustration at the emphasis of an elective health care service that is already available at a cost that has declined over the years. Generic oral contraceptive prescriptions run about $10/month. Condoms cost pennies.

I have practiced maternal child health for 12 years and can honestly say that I have rarely, if ever encountered an individual who desired family planning services but couldn't access them due to cost.

This subject has reached what seems like almost a hysterical pitch that Republicans and/or religious institutions are trying to take something away from American women. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one is trying to prevent women from obtaining anything that they can obtain now. And no one is trying to take away insurance coverage that already exists for these services. But to force all plans to cover contraceptives at 100% is to fix something that ain't broke at the expense of other, more vital, more life saving services that individuals may wish to access.

you quotes are some what disengenuous, if you were to compare 1974, the first FULL year, you would find the numbers almost exactly the same. I do remember your antiabortion thoughts from earlier threads, please don't attempt to skew the facts to fit your paradigm.

Unfortunately, statistics do not bear this out. The Guttmacher Institute Website indicates that in 1973, the number of abortions per 1000 women ages 15-44 was 16.3. In 2008, despite more varieties of contraception available both RX and OTC, abortions numbered 19.6 per 1000 women.

This is also an interesting statistic from that website:

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

Only 8% of women having abortions report never having used contraception.

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Specializes in Reproductive & Public Health.

I understand that many women find prescription contraceptives to be an improvement to their quality of life, and don't begrudge anyone that. But, for the life of me, I don't understand how or why a health issue that is not a life or death matter should be given a higher priority than those that are.

Because it is a HUGE, huge public health issue. You getting hit by a car certainly sucks big time, but contraception/reproduction has an incredible impact on society as a whole. Thus our gov't has a vested interest in it, one way or another (depending on your politics or religion).

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.

LookingAhead,

I admire your optimism, but respectfully disagree with your perspective. I don't believe that the overall goal of Obamacare is preventive care and cost savings. I believe it is uniformity, which isn't a good thing, because it won't meet the needs of most people forced to participate.

There is no one-size fits all health plan. Individuals will receive cost-effective and efficient healthcare only when allowed to access that which fits their needs and their budgets.

I have no need of most of the services listed as preventive under Obamacare. What is preventive for a young woman or new family differs greatly from what is preventive for a diabetic, or individual with high blood pressure, or a cancer survivor such as myself. This plan makes no allowance for those differences, but forces everyone to pay for services that Americans have been convinced are somehow sacred.

Why is contraception more important (meaning given a higher priority in funding) than delivering a baby or fixing a broken leg?

I apologize for this snarky remark. It does nothing to further the debate. But it does sum up my frustration at the emphasis of an elective health care service that is already available at a cost that has declined over the years. Generic oral contraceptive prescriptions run about $10/month. Condoms cost pennies.

I have practiced maternal child health for 12 years and can honestly say that I have rarely, if ever encountered an individual who desired family planning services but couldn't access them due to cost.

This subject has reached what seems like almost a hysterical pitch that Republicans and/or religious institutions are trying to take something away from American women. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one is trying to prevent women from obtaining anything that they can obtain now. And no one is trying to take away insurance coverage that already exists for these services. But to force all plans to cover contraceptives at 100% is to fix something that ain't broke at the expense of other, more vital, more life saving services that individuals may wish to access.

Through the insurance that I had in my first year out of college, my generic OCPs cost $43 a month. There was no such $10 option available to me. And condoms do not necessarily cost pennies - if you're buying them in boxes in a retail store, and that's your only method of contraception, the cost can really add up. God help you if you or your partner is allergic to latex.

With all due respect, just because you never encountered an individual who couldn't access family planning adequately due to cost doesn't mean there aren't many such women. And having worked in MCH for 12 years, you know that a woman doesn't have to always be unable to afford FP services to end up with an unwanted pregnancy - one month that she couldn't afford it will do the trick.

Specializes in LTC Rehab Med/Surg.
:nurse:
+ Add a Comment