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.

[Jolie, BSN]

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.

I agree that stinks. And it stinks because your insurance was taking advantage of you by charging you premiums yet not providing you with reasonable discounts/coverage on the services you desired. It highlights a major problem with insurance coverage as it now stands...You were lumped into a group policy and allowed the benefits your employer chose. Discounted birth control pills were apparently not one of those benefits. You were forced to pay for something that did not benefit you, and likewise forced to pay for a whole bunch of stuff that you would never use.

If you had been free to choose an individual policy that met your needs, you could have selected provisions that made sense for you...low cost birth control instead of senior long term care coverage.

Obamacare won't allow you to make those choices, either.

This may no longer be an issue for you, but most major retail pharmacies now offer discount plans which include contraceptives as "lifestyle" choice drugs. I just looked at the brochure from the plan our family uses, and the highest priced brand name birth control pills cost $20/month. An advantage of the free market offering discounts to gain the business of an underserved segment of the population. They probably won't continue to offer such plans once Obamacare mandates everyone to have government coverage or the "equivalent."

[mazy]

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]White House Quietly Increases Budget for Obamacare's Exchange Subsidies by $111 Billion - Forbes

People already get "free" health care. Walk into any ER and you will see people who are getting an enormously expensive level of care because they do not have access to preventative care for problems that could be managed effectively if they could just see a dr. regularly.

You will also see a lot of sick kids and pregnant women who do not have access to a simple routine doctor's office visit.

You will also see so many people that the halls are clogged, staff is overwhelmed, and NO ONE is getting the care they need.

The issue is not that the bill will lower costs and improve access to healthcare. The issue is that with improved access to preventative care, people will not have to wait until they are in extreme duress to receive acute level care, they will be able to manage their health issues adequately, and so we will spend less money on healthcare.

If women have access to BC, the number of unintended pregnancies will drop, and women will not need abortions or have children that they cannot take care of and that we, as taxpayers and healthcare consumers, will be paying to care for.

[LookingAhead]

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.

This is just...I'm flabbergasted. A lifestyle choice?!

Let's get to the heart of this and say what basically all human beings choose to do at some point: have sex. Go ahead and call that a "lifestyle choice" if you like, although why that is helpful to this conversation. Now let's talk about what happens to most people at some point when having sex without birth control: pregnancy. And who are the people dealing with this directly? WOMEN.

Pregnancy and birth have enormous impacts on "life and health" - whether or not you actually choose to parent the child that you give birth to - they impact physical and mental health in countless ways, they impact relationships, they impact educational attainment, finances and the ability to find remunerated work outside the home. For those who want to have a large number of children: go right ahead - that's your lifestyle choice. But for everyone else, the ability to prevent pregnancy (entirely, or until such time as you wish to have children) is absolutely "essential to life and health". It is crucial for women, in order for any society to have a chance at a full participation of its members. Perhaps you don't have an interest in living in such a society - but I do, as, I believe, do most people.

Looking at statistics about the rates and types of birth control use among women who have had abortions ought to raise serious questions - but it is not a useful reaction to say "Well, we've still got abortions so clearly this whole experiment with birth control has been a huge failure!" It would be far more useful to look at what the other factors associated with the correct use of birth control and effective family planning: clearly, simply having access to a packet of birth control pills is insufficient. Factors to be improved on include patient counseling and education on how birth control actually works, and how it can fail; ensuring that patients are receiving information on the vast array of (potentially confusing) options for birth control, what side effects they may experience and what their alternatives are other than simply ceasing to use birth control; how to negotiate birth control use with partners who may be unwilling to use it; promoting varieties of birth control (both through education and through free or low-cost availability) that have less potential for human error, such as IUDs, injectables, etc. - the list goes on and on.

Considering the fact that most everyone has sex, and that most people are interested in planning when/if they have children, birth control is a critical public health issue. But you know what? Even if it were simply a "life style choice" I would still support universal coverage for birth control, because of how impactful pregnancy and birth are on the health of women and their familes. You know what else is a life style choice? Eating cheeseburgers every day. Drinking yourself into a stupor. Never getting off the couch. But I want to live in a place where you can get care for heart disease and cancer, no matter why you have them - even if it was because of your life style choices. That's what it means to live in a humane society.

[Jolie, BSN]

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.

Not selfishness, pragmatism. Obamacare will not lower healthcare costs, it will cause them to increase even faster because it will leave people with the perception that their bills are someone else's responsibility. Furthermore, a one-size-fits-all insurance plan is really a one-size-fits-no one plan. It helps no one to have granny paying for birth control, maternity care or infant immunizations, nor to have a 16 year old paying for geriatric long term care. Allowing individuals and families to customize plans to their needs would keep premiums lower and reflect the actual services needed and utilized.

Unintended pregnancy is definitely a public finance issue, far more so than public health. But regardless of our disagreement, you must be relieved that the entire problem will be resolved with the advent of free birth control under Obamacare.

[Jolie, BSN]

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.

Your agrument ignores the Guttmacher stat that over 50% of women presenting for abortion used birth control in the month they conceived. That would point to improper and/or inconsistent use or contraceptive failure, not inability to access or pay for contraception. How do you propose to ensure that the birth control we are about to hand out for free will be properly used?

Your comments ignore the availability of the OTC methods listed, and that condoms are widely available free of charge now in schools, on college campuses, and in other locations that didn't hand them out 40 years ago.

[33762FL]

and setting the religious exemption issue aside, there are individuals who don't want or need contraceptive coverage.

i don't smoke, it's a filthy habit, but my private health insurance covers medication and treatment for a the full spectrum of respiratory disorders. i also don't drink, take drugs, or over-eat, yet my premiums go to subsidize addiction treatment, diabetic treatment, and hospitalizations for detox. this is how insurance works, you pay into a pool and a lot of other people use services that you don't use, and you use a few services that they don't use.

[33762FL]

my point is that contraception doesn't lower abortion rates.

the sudden introduction and availability of contraception in eastern europe around the time of the fall of the iron curtain drastically reduced abortion rates in those countries, which were very high. perhaps that is what the study is referring to?

[Jolie, BSN]

So why are yo willing to pay for your cardiac care, but expect to get your birth control for free?

[Jolie, BSN]

and setting the religious exemption issue aside, there are individuals who don't want or need contraceptive coverage.

i don't smoke, it's a filthy habit, but my private health insurance covers medication and treatment for a the full spectrum of respiratory disorders. i also don't drink, take drugs, or over-eat, yet my premiums go to subsidize addiction treatment, diabetic treatment, and hospitalizations for detox. this is how insurance works, you pay into a pool and a lot of other people use services that you don't use, and you use a few services that they don't use.

but you don't get those services for free. you pay your portion of that care. why should birth control be different?

[MunoRN, RN]

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.

The Affordable Care Act didn't mandate that contraception be paid for, it mandated that preventative care be our first priority, which includes contraception. This is because spending money on preventative care actually costs us nothing, in fact we get money back; For every dollar spent on preventative care we save $36.

Contraception is considered preventative care for a few reasons: in addition to helping avoid the social costs of welfare and abortions, "unintended pregnancies lead to higher rates of infant mortality, low birth weight, and maternal morbidity, and threaten the economic viability of families." (Presbyterian Church USA).

It is true that reported abortion rates have increased since birth control became available in the 60's, but that's largely due to abortion becoming legal in the early 70's, prior to that and even in the early days of legal abortion, the backroom abortion clinics didn't self-report their statistics.

[MunoRN, RN]

Your agrument ignores the Guttmacher stat that over 50% of women presenting for abortion used birth control in the month they conceived. That would point to improper and/or inconsistent use or contraceptive failure, not inability to access or pay for contraception. How do you propose to ensure that the birth control we are about to hand out for free will be properly used?

Your comments ignore the availability of the OTC methods listed, and that condoms are widely available free of charge now in schools, on college campuses, and in other locations that didn't hand them out 40 years ago.

When I go to my dentist and he tells me I have a cavity and asks If I've been flossing, of course my answer is "yes", do I really floss? Never.

[33762FL]

"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."

i just looked at the link you provided and the chart shows abortion peaking in 1981 and declining ever since. so no, it hasn't remained stead for the past 40 years.

in the us, hormonal birth control is not available without a prescription. the pill, ring, patch, shot, and iud all must be procured either from a doctor or with a prescription. making the pill and the other items otc would be a positive improvement in access, and this already the case in some countries. a pack of birth control pills is about $10/month otc in mexico and in columbia you can go to the pharmacy and buy an iud for about $25, then pay your gyn to insert it.