New Debate Over Contraceptives and Women's Health
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-21/new-debate-over-contraceptives-and-womens-health
A new report recommends that health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control. It’s the most controversial of eight recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine. The report will help the Department of Health and Human Services decide what preventive care falls under the nation’s new health care law. The recommendations include screenings for HIV, HPV and diabetes, as well as counseling for domestic violence. But the decision to include the full range of FDA approved contraceptives has sparked the most debate. Diane and her guests discuss the move to compel insurers to cover contraceptives and how it affects women’s health.
Guests
Julie Rovner
health policy correspondent for NPR, author of "Health Care Policy and Politics A-Z," and contributing editor for National Journal Daily.
Helen Alvare
law professor at George Mason University
Linda Rosenstock
chair of the Institute of Medicine’s committee for preventive services for women, dean of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles
Judy Waxman
vice president of healthcare and reproductive rights for the National Women's Law Center
Sen. Barbara Mikulski
U.S. senator from Maryland
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I would like to hear Professor Alvare's thoughts on the concious objections, in particular why, as a someone who is against some of the conflicts that the US is involved in abroad, my PERSONAL views and values should be ignored while hers should be taken into account in regards to policy making. Also, what are her thoughts on the recent comments by Ann Coulter stating that abortion providers deserve to be murdered.
Maybe someday women's minds will gain the power to directly control their bodies and choose directly whether to become pregnant. We have made some progress by recognizing that women are the legal and moral equals of men who deserve bodily integrity and privacy. There remain places on this Earth where women (and even young girls) have no choice in marriage, sexuality or motherhood. And this is happening still on a desperate planet short on water, food, resources and clean energy.
Two things: Doesn't choice or rationality have any recognized value for women or are all women's bodies slipping back to being a speculative commodity? And if the cost of a few pills voluntarily taken could save the ecology of this planet wouldn't it be insane to reject that solution on the basis of superstition, anachronistic tradition or the tiny relative expense of the medication? Birth control should be free Globally, and making it available should be the highest priority.
Because there is no oral contraception for men women must bear the responsibility to do the sane thing. Some men ( and some jealous women) unreasonably want to control women's choice, being unsatisfied with the complete mastery of their own frail bodies. What a wrongheaded shame!
Do your panelist know that in TX if you have an individual plan, i.e. your are self employed, your plan will NEVER pay for coverage of a normal pregnancy and delivery? Are they addressing this injustice?
Thanks
I wonder why the insurance industry thinks this is more costly than pregnancy and the associated costs of birth and raising children. It seems a few dolloars for birth control would be way less that all the health care costs of raising children.
Gary.
Please ask if all of the parties included in the talks about birth control for women understand that this coverage should NOT BE RESTRICTED, OR OFFERED ONLY TO WOMEN WHO ARE MARRIED. Years ago I knew of single women friends who had difficulties in getting birth control prescriptions from their family doctors. I think those days are past, women can find doctors who don't ask those kinds of questions. But what about insurance companies? Are they going to try to restrict these benefits to married women only?
Thanks!
Maggie in Fort Worth
I would like Helen Alvare's statements to undergo a fact check. She does not cite the year of the CDC's statistics.
Thank you.
My health insurance doesn't even cover ANY prescription birth control! It's about time the government did something about it. The only way I can afford my birth control pills is to order them from a Canadian pharmacy. Mind you, I pay $200 monthly for my health insurance.
Simone from Miami, FL
This will greatly improve the lives of women and children in this country. If women are educated about their bodies and able to plan responsibly for their families, they can approach the act of motherhood more fully prepared. This will mean healthier babies and fewer incidents of abuse (directly correlated to a woman't SES, number of children, and spousal support). It also gives our lower-income women a chance to become wage-earners without the stress of childcare, working within the welfare system, etc. Bravo!
How can Diane think this is an even conversation? She has 4 guests in favor of this legislation, and only 1 against. This is not what I would call a thoughtful, open, discussion.
It is ridiculous to say that government intervention in birth control is responsible for more unwanted and teen pregnancies etc...
Times, people, society and acceptance change!
As a nurse, I am familiar with cultural beliefs dictating medical care and as healthcare professionals, we are trained to be sensitive to these considerations. However, nobody would take seriously a Jehovah's Witness effort to ban all blood transfusions because of their beliefs. Similarly I do not believe that other's religious belief should dictate the medical care that others are able to get regarding birth control or abortion or any other medical procedure..
Then you should refuse to buy it and let them know why! The only power we have as citizens is our wallets. Don't buy things that are over priced or are not good products. Then, since it is so easy theses days, put out publicly what is going on. Even insurance companies will provide a product if that is what people will pay for.
This debate should be focused on truly free coverage for women as far as birth control and preventative re-productive health are concerned . The majority of the costs of birthing and raising children is carried by women personally, socially and economically. Past experience tells me that this debate will only add to that burden by making health insurance even more expensive for women.
To what Helen said: Realize that sex is almost never driven by the availability (or lack thereof) of contraceptives!
A $25 co-pay for a new college graduate is far less than the cost of pregnancy and a baby. I was a new college graduate three years ago and manage to prioritize my expenses in order to prevent the cost of a child I was not prepared for. I have no issue with subsidies for those who are deservedly on welfare, but someone who is working may need to re-evaluate their budget. I have a strong feeling, based on my own experience, that perhaps young women who are working are putting expensive phone and internet plans and social outings before their health and pregnancy prevention.
As for men and birth control, will the government start subsidizing the use of prophylactics?
I am in charge of procuring health insurance for our small company. Last week I asked about preventative care, specifcally a colonoscopy. I was told by the insurance representative that if I had a screening colonoscopy (because my mother had colon cancer) and the doctor found a polyp and removed it, the procedure would then be classified NOT as a screening colonoscopy, but as a diagnostic colonosopy therefore would not be paid under the wellness provisions of the policy!
Young women need contraceptives most, and they are also the ones with the lowest income! So why should they be required to pay large co-pays for a preventive health product? I was young once, too, and I remember what a burden it was to pay for pills every month. If men could get pregnant, this discussion of coverage for contraceptives would not be necessary!
Also, it is nonsense to talk about whether a drug that prevents implantation is an abortifacient. Implantation defines pregnancy, NOT fertilization (aka "conception" to a few religions). Naturally, more than half of fertilized eggs fail to implant!
In reply to:
Beverly Jordan Bush wrote:
As a nurse, I am familiar with cultural beliefs dictating medical care and as healthcare professionals, we are trained to be sensitive to these considerations. However, nobody would take seriously a Jehovah's Witness effort to ban all blood transfusions because of their beliefs. Similarly I do not believe that other's religious belief should dictate the medical care that others are able to get regarding birth control or abortion or any other medical procedure..
Great point! I completely agree.
Why have you not noted that Helen Alvare was long the lobbyist for the Catholic Church on abortion and contraception? It seems misleading to just call her a law professor.
If I understand Professor Alvarez's argument, it could be applied to any treatment. So, for instance, investment in diabetes treatment over the past decades correlates with the rise in diabetes. It probably also encourages the change in the culture about food, by reducing the penalties for overeating or failing to manage sugar. Therefore diabetes treatments caused the rise in diabetes and the solution to diabetes as a social problem is to limit diabetes treatment.
I think that vasectomies ought to be covered for men's health insurance. As a guy, I think that contraception puts an unfair burden on the woman. If men had the option to get an affordable vasectomy, I think most men would definitely opt for one. I know I sure would!
One guest mentioned contraception covered w no copays saves money. Isn't the same thing true for medications for many chronic conditions like hypertension and many mental disorders that keep people from needing expensive care? Shouldn't those medications also be covered with no copay?
Could your panel members please comment on the coverage provided in Canada and also the European Union countries? Thank you very much.
PLEASE lets wipe out the insurance industry!
If people feel that they can behave without consquence people tend to do whatever they like. Providing abortions and birth control allow people to feel they can act with no consquence. As a father of daughters, I want them to feel responsible for their actions including facing the realities of consquences of poor decisions.
As Helen discusses risk, she fails to recognize that men in this country face little to no risk from sexual activity (when it comes to pregnancy). Men are rarely left with the burden of raising a child, and so it strikes me as shockingly unfair to expect women to not only raise these children, but do so alone...this is why giving women every opportunity to prevent unwanted pregnancy is so important. If they choose to pursue other methods (ie linking sex more closely with commitment, as helen said), then that is their choice. But choice is the key and we have to make it available and affordable to be a choice.
I do not expect anyone other than myself to pay for my birth control, because it is my choice. However, I do not understand why I pay $360 a month because of a $75 maternity rider...just because I am a woman. I am in good health, and only go to the doctor as recommended for yearly exams. It would however be more reasonable for women to not have to pay so much per month because we want to be responsible. In my opinion, birth control is big business and the companies know this.
I also am bothered that religion still seems to play a role in our society regarding this issue. I do not believe that making financial access to preventitive measures, such as birth control, will send our society into a downward spiral. We only head that direction when we choose to participate in the actions that take us there, and individuals are responsible for themselves. Sexual education and access to the ability to control our own bodies should be at the front of this cause, not what seems to me to be outdated politics and beliefs.
While I understand the importance of looking at statistics in the US, I don't understand why those in Europe are being ignored, especially by Helen.
In Europe, both birth control and sex education are offered at much more comprehensive, higher rates than in the US. And most would agree that it's a much more "permissive" culture than our own. And yet rates of teen pregnancy are much lower and the ages at which young people become sexually active are much higher.
This first caller was right to call Helen out on ignoring the increase in "abstinence only" education in her claim that availability of birth control is the primary contributing factor in greater sexual activity.
I would like to hear her respond to European statistics...
I would be in favor of an implant that lasts 3-5 years, especially in those who receive government assistance and are least likely able to care for the babies they create. I see the value in that, but just giving contraception away at taxpayer expense is the wrong answer. We need health care reform, not an increased giveaway. I'm sure the drug companies are pushing this to increase demand. Very sad.
Are we engaging in a, pardon, 'chicken or the egg' scenario here? To suggest that government intervention is a major driver in the sexual market is a bit of a stretch. It could be just as easily said that participants in the 'summer of love' of the late 1960's and the following 'sexual revolution' of the early to mid 1970's were engaged in shaking off the predominate view of a woman's 'place' in society - have we forgotten the Women's Revolution walking alongside the Sexual Revolution? To compare the number of citizens engaging in sexually 'risky' behavior in 1960, with behavior found in the decades to follow, ignores the stigma of such behavior in those days - and is statistically misleading.