Are oral contraceptives healthcare?

[cargalrn]

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.

[LookingAhead]

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?

Perhaps you're misunderstanding my point - the Affordable Care Act is not a health care plan. It isn't an insurance plan. It's a piece of legislation attempting to regulate aspects of the health care industry, including services that insurance companies must cover.

The fact that you don't need most of the preventative services listed is great - you're not required to go get them. The point is that when all insurance policies are required to pay for these services, the cost of services goes down for everyone - which is a good thing because you never know what services you're going to need. I am happy to pay into a system that covers your needs as a cancer survivor, despite the fact that I'm not one myself.

Covering birth control as a preventative service brings down costs associated with treating women for conditions that could have been prevented through that birth control - which is something that it makes financial sense to support considering that your tax dollars go to Medicaid. The Affordable Care Act's provisions for preventative care will save you money in this way.

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

I'm sorry.....if they pay for Viagra then they should pay for the means to prevent pregnancy from an extended (pun intended)opportunity to make one.

[MN-Nurse, ASN, RN]

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

Yes, if you use birth control inconsistently, then it doesn't work very well.

Used as directed, which isn't that freaking hard, it works very well - and prevents pregnancies and abortions.

Your point appears to be that birth control doesn't work. This a fairly ludicrous claim.

[morte, LPN, LVN]

yeah, no mention of all the women who successfully used BC, because that wasn't the subject of this article, and not helpful to jolie's point. Just as ignoring the point that i made earlier, that if you compare 1974 instead of 1973, the figures are almost exactly the same. But, that also doesn't work for her, so was ignored.

Yes, if you use birth control inconsistently, then it doesn't work very well.

Used as directed, which isn't that freaking hard, it works very well - and prevents pregnancies and abortions.

Your point appears to be that birth control doesn't work. This a fairly ludicrous claim.

[Jolie, BSN]

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).

I certainly hope that the government does not have a vested interest in an individual's pregnancy. Pregnancy is not contagious, nor does it pose a threat to one's neighbors or community, so I don't understand how pregnancy is a public health issue.

[Jolie, BSN]

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.

If you don't like my statistics, I'll use yours. They prove the same point, which is that the wider availability of numerous new birth control products over the 20+ year period (many available without a prescription) has done nothing to reduce the abortion rate. You are correct that I oppose abortion, which is all the more reason to prevent it. Unfortunately, increased access to contraception does not accomplish that. These statistics are expressed as pregnancies per thousand women of childbearing age, so changes in population don't account for the lack of improvement in the abortion rate despite wider access to birth control. New, specialized versions of the pill, injections, implants, patches, hormonal rings, spermicides, sponges, etc. were all introduced between 1974 and 2008, and yet the abortion rate remains consistent.

The Guttmacher statistics also bear out that the majority of women presenting for abortions used birth control during the month in which they conceived, so despite having access, they still got pregnant. A full 92% of women seeking abortion had a history of using birth control. Only a slim minority of 8% had NEVER used contraception, which would seem to indicate that they could either not access it or afford it. That certainly warrants a targeted effort at providing access to women, but not the full out assault of forcing every American citizen to fund a new entitlement that most don't need.

So if you're going to throw around accusations of disengenuousness, please save them for those who claim that birth control prevents abortion. It doesn't. Birth control is a lifestyle choice for women and it certainly improves the quality of life for many. That's a worthy cause, but not worthy of elevation to a status of greater importance than other health care issues that are actually essential to life and health.

[mazy]

I certainly hope that the government does not have a vested interest in an individual's pregnancy. Pregnancy is not contagious, nor does it pose a threat to one's neighbors or community, so I don't understand how pregnancy is a public health issue.

Look to your source:

http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/pregnancy.php

[Jolie, BSN]

Yes, if you use birth control inconsistently, then it doesn't work very well.

Used as directed, which isn't that freaking hard, it works very well - and prevents pregnancies and abortions.

Your point appears to be that birth control doesn't work. This a fairly ludicrous claim.

That's not my point at all. My point is that contraception doesn't lower abortion rates. As cited, the majority of women presenting for abortions had used contraception in the month in which they conceived. I think we can all figure that out. Some used it inconsistently. Some incorrectly. Some experienced unfortunate failures. The end result is the same. Unless you know of some way to make certain that all the "free" birth control we are about to provide is consistently used correctly, the abortion rate will remain the same. Or possibly even increase, which I believe will happen.

It is my experience that when individuals pay for a product or service out of their own pockets, they tend to treat it with greater care than if it was handed to them. So if women paying for their own contraception aren't getting it right, I suspect that women who get their birth control for free will be even less likely to follow directions and common sense in its use. I'll go way out on a limb and predict that the abortion rate will rise following the implementation of this ill-advised mandate.

Would you like to revisit this in a few years and check?

[Borntobenurse?]

I certainly hope that the government does not have a vested interest in an individual's pregnancy. Pregnancy is not contagious, nor does it pose a threat to one's neighbors or community, so I don't understand how pregnancy is a public health issue.

Your view is predicated on selfishness. You don't need it, so you don't want it to be be regulated. I don't need synthroid or BP pills. I guess if I had your point of view I don't think those should be 'covered' or regulated by insurance either since I don't personally 'use' them.

Seriously the cost of an unwanted pregnancy on a society is huge. How could you not understand that it IS a public health issue.

[mazy]

Unfortunately, increased access to contraception does not accomplish that. These statistics are expressed as pregnancies per thousand women of childbearing age, so changes in population don't account for the lack of improvement in the abortion rate despite wider access to birth control. New, specialized versions of the pill, injections, implants, patches, hormonal rings, spermicides, sponges, etc. were all introduced between 1974 and 2008, and yet the abortion rate remains consistent.

All of these require a doctor's visit, a prescription, and money to pay for them, in addition to ongoing follow up with a provider. The fact that they exist does not mean, at the same time, that they are more accessible. It only means that they exist.

The issue of access refers to the ability to actually obtain and use BC. If these forms of BC exist and abortion continues to be an issue, than the problem, pretty clearly, is that women are not able to obtain and use (have access to) birth control.

[Jolie, BSN]

Perhaps you're misunderstanding my point - the Affordable Care Act is not a health care plan. It isn't an insurance plan. It's a piece of legislation attempting to regulate aspects of the health care industry, including services that insurance companies must cover.

The fact that you don't need most of the preventative services listed is great - you're not required to go get them. The point is that when all insurance policies are required to pay for these services, the cost of services goes down for everyone - which is a good thing because you never know what services you're going to need. I am happy to pay into a system that covers your needs as a cancer survivor, despite the fact that I'm not one myself.

Covering birth control as a preventative service brings down costs associated with treating women for conditions that could have been prevented through that birth control - which is something that it makes financial sense to support considering that your tax dollars go to Medicaid. The Affordable Care Act's provisions for preventative care will save you money in this way.

I get your point, I just disagree with it. You are optimistic that this bill will lower costs and improve access to healthcare. I am certain that it will have the opposite effect because it is crafted in a way that encourages individuals to become dependents of the federal government, "entitled" to "free" care.

As I've said before, if you think healthcare is expensive and difficult to access now, just wait until people perceive that it's free.

Contraception is relatively inexpensive and relatively easy to access now. In a few years, it won't be. You may not receive a big bill from your OB-GYN, but the federal government will, and that will turn into higher taxes, well out of proportion to today's cost of care. Don't believe me...just check out Medicare Part D.

These entitlements are unsustainable and will crush our economy, much like Greece is experiencing now.

Interesting piece on the actual cost of implementing Obamacare. The projected cost of supporting premiums has already increased by $110 Billion, and it's not even implemented yet.

[h=1]White House Quietly Increases Budget for Obamacare's Exchange Subsidies by $111 Billion[/h]http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/28/white-house-quietly-increases-budget-for-obamacares-exchange-subsidies-by-111-billion/

[canigraduate]

Interesting how this discussion about BCP being considered "healthcare" has become yet another avenue for political grandstanding. Don't you have your own forum?

Whoops - somehow I ended up in the political forum. Never mind. I hate coming in here. ¡Adios!