Cost of Contraception

[dietz199]

<p>

I spent an hour Friday with an expert in the animal/ag side of a pharma co. He is adamant this country will face a “food emergency” in the next 25-30 years, and that almost no one in the general population sees it coming.

</p>

<p>And…to really go off topic…the more GMO foods we rely on, the more homogeneous the supply becomes, and the more the crop is vulnerable to a ONE microbe that will wipe out the whole species. Goodness help us if we start cloning cattle etc. There again, with no biodiversity we are setting ourselves up for one major oops!</p>

[FutureWeatherman]

<p>We sure are. Everyone get to growing your own fruits and veggies!!!</p>

[kluge]

<p>

@claremarie

Vasectomies. Also, costs associated with any sort of gender-reassignment surgery. And in vitro fertilization. Just off the top of my head. Of course, all of these are related to sexuality, but they also affect men.

Can you actually cite me to a health plan that excludes vasectomies, gender reassignment surgery, or in vitro fertilization “for religious reasons?” I understand that vasectomies generally are covered and the other two generally are not, but have never heard religion used as the reason. The justification for excluding gender reassignment surgery and in vitro fertilization that I’ve heard is that they are expensive and aren’t considered to be preventative treatment (by most people’s thinking, anyway) but I’ve never heard religion used as the excuse. </p>

<p>

@claremarie

But consider the argument some are making here – because some women lack sufficient motivation or marketable skills to obtain employment from an organization that provides them with free contraceptives, and therefore find themselves involuntarily employed by religiously-affiliated organizations declining to provide such benefits, those employers should be forced to violate their religious convictions and to provide free contraception to all employees. And that, when the employers object, the government reminds them that, after all, lots of other Catholic employers provide contraception coverage, and most self-described Catholics are using contraceptives, so obviously it’s not much of a teaching, so why all the fuss?

That’s actually not an argument that anyone but you is making. Creating a falsified version of an argument you’re having trouble rebutting is called making a “straw man” argument - it’s a classic logical fallacy.</p>

<p>What’s actually been done is something that’s been done by government for decades - setting minimum standards for standard insurance plans, and requiring everyone who offers such an insurance plan have it cover at least that minimum. Economically rational decisions are legal, but allowing a business to engage in an employment practice which discriminates against one sex is not - even if discriminating against one sex is part of the religious tradition of the owner of the business. </p>

<p>Granted, that lacks the oozing contempt you managed to inject into your projection of what “other people” are saying, but it’s all that’s really going on.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

But it isn’t mandated because it saves money.

</p>

<p>You keep repeating the mantra mini, but with one anecdote as evidence.</p>

<p>

The reasoning is that in the overall pool of patients covered by the health plan, total costs of providing the preventive care is less than the cost of treating the consequence of not preventing what the treatment prevents.

</p>

<p>I hope that is not the “reasoning”, because if it is, it would be factually incorrect. Prevention may save lives, but it definitely does not save money.</p>

<p>According to Doug Elmendorf, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, serving under Pelosi and Reid (so the “non-partisan” Director was at least left-leaning):</p>

<p>

But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. … Preventive care can have the largest benefits relative to costs when it is targeted at people who are most likely to suffer from a particular medical problem; however, such targeting can be difficult because preventive services are generally provided to patients who have the potential to contract a given disease but have not yet shown symptoms of having it.
…
The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall…

</p>

<p>Or the New England Journal of Medicine:</p>

<p>

Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs…the vast majority of preventive health measures that were reviewed in the health economics literature do not" save money.</p>

<p>Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits relative to their cost," the authors write. "In contrast, some preventive measures are expensive given the health benefits they confer. In general, whether a particular preventive measure represents good value or poor value depends on factors such as the population targeted, with measures targeting higher-risk populations typically being the most efficient.

</p>

<p>

@lasma

Awesome, kluge, in part because there are no logical or reality-based rebuttals to your explanations. Only emotional and/or misinformed ones. Not that those won’t still be advanced, but it’s now clear that that’s what they are.

</p>

<p>Medical economics not good enough?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Kluge, you are on a roll.</p>

[dstark]

<p>Bluebayou…where are the specifics of birth control pills as it relates to savings costs down the road from your post? Do you have specific findings?</p>

<p>Kluge…your posts are both logical and well written.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

where are the specifics of birth control pills as it relates to savings costs down the road from your post? Do you have specific findings?

</p>

<p>If I had “findings” about the costs/savings of birth control pills, I wouldn’t be asking mini for it…</p>

<p>Conventional wisdom is that overall prevention saves money (the Prez even made several speeches on that topic when he was selling the ACA), but the fact in this instance, is that conventional wisdom is wrong. </p>

<p>In reading several pages of this thread, it was obvious to me that the conventional 'wisdom" is that birth control pills save money. Perhaps they do. I’d just like to see some actuarial studies to support that “fact”. Otherwise it easily could be the same conventional wisdom of the preceding paragraph.</p>

[dstark]

<p>Bluebayou…ok…but your last two posts don’t prove anything.</p>

[Seahorsesrock]

<p>Guess we shouldn’t bother with flu shots, polio shoots, colonoscopies, biopsies, diabetes test, cause heck, etc. </p>

<p>Blue, guess no need for check ups, shots, pap smears.</p>

<p>When your child gets sick guess that tb test eh, who needs it? Or when your dad dies from high bloodpressure too bad for him. Cause it’s all about money not health.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>I’m not trying to “prove” anything dstark. </p>

<p>Mini made the original claim, and since he is in health care, I was just seeking the ‘research’ behind it.</p>

<p>Since this is a college board, I’m using what critical thinking skill I learned in college to challenge broad, sweeping generalizations made out to be “facts”. </p>

<p>Googling, I did find a blog which looked a several studies about birth control costs/savings and concluded that the evidence is conflicting and inconclusive. So birth control might save money and it might not. (I realize that the partisans don’t care, but others might be interested in what true studies are out there…)</p>

<p>But again, I did not make a claim that I need to “prove”.</p>

<p>Seahorse: immunizations are one aspect of prevention that does in fact save money. Plenty of studies demonstrate that fact. </p>

<p>Again, some on this thread made a specific claim that birth control saves money. If so where is the proof? If not, then the supporters should switch to the ‘health’ argument. But “health” costs money. (Nothing wrong with that, but that is not the argument being made.)</p>

[parent1986]

<p>BBY, what does it cost to raise a child, especially one who is born to an unmarried mother receiving medicaid and welfare?</p>

<p>The critical thinking skills to figure that out can be done by a 14yo.</p>

[dstark]

<p>[FactCheck.org</a> : Cloudy Contraception Costs](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/cloudy-contraception-costs/]FactCheck.org”>Cloudy Contraception Costs - FactCheck.org)</p>

<p>It does seem to be inconclusive…</p>

<p>But there are savings that go beyond the medical savings? No?</p>

<p>Birth control pills can be used for other medical reasons other than pregnancies? No?</p>

<p>I kind of remember that the economists who wrote Freakonomics think that abortions cut crime.</p>

<p>Probably cut welfare costs too. </p>

<p>Birth control does the same thing.</p>

<p>And…I fall in the camp that this argument about birth control is about taking away women’s rights. It’s not as if religions never takes away women’s rights.</p>

<p>When there are conflicts between the rights of religious groups and women’s rights…I side with women.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>^^except that was not the point that mini and kluge were making parent1986. Kluge specifically referenced HMO’s as saving money (and was applauded for it), not medicaid or welfare programs.</p>

<p>dstark: I don’t disagree with your post 752, (and have posted before that bc should be available OTC), but it seems to me that we could do with a lot more fact-checking on cc. :)</p>

<p>But not sure that cutting welfare costs – if true-- is a program seller.</p>

[dstark]

<p>Ok…you know I do a lot of fact checking. ;)</p>

[kluge]

<p>Well, blubayou, there are lots of “preventive care” measures and some are more cost effective than others. Colonoscopies are preventive care that’s recommended as “standard” by some; not by others. Colonoscopies are expensive; BC pills are cheap. Here’s another couple of studies on BC cost/benefit which conclude that including the coverage is net cash positive for the plan: <a href=“http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/CPSW-testimony.pdf[/url]”>http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/CPSW-testimony.pdf&lt;/a&gt; and <a href=“http://www.businessgrouphealth.org/healthtopics/maternalchild/investing/docs/mch_toolkit.pdf[/url]”>http://www.businessgrouphealth.org/healthtopics/maternalchild/investing/docs/mch_toolkit.pdf&lt;/a&gt; (I don’t know the authors and haven’t checked the math.)</p>

<p>But I’ll take “unclear” as an answer. Given that; it still doesn’t support an economic justification for singling out this particular medical treatment for non-coverage. I’ll stick with my original premise: the reason isn’t economic.</p>

<p>I don’t think anyone really believes that it is.</p>

[sylvan8798]

<p>

@kluge

Government shouldn’t take steps (particularly drastic steps) unless and until we have at the very least a reasonably firm consensus. We don’t have that. You shouldn’t make things criminal if 51% of the public thinks it’s a crime and 49% doesn’t, any more than the opposite. I don’t care how strongly the 51% feel about it.

Surely you don’t mean to make this a general statement about what should be against the law and what shouldn’t do you?</p>

<p>Bump in hope of response.</p>

[mom2collegekids]

<p>Gee, I want someone to pay for my kotex and tampons. I’ve had that expense for over 40 years and when you add it all up…we’re talking some serious coin. </p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

<p>As for that comment that the only reason an insurance company would decide not to cover BCP is to “control women”…that’s just silly. Insurance companies don’t want women to have more babies…pregnancies cost a whole lot more than BCPs…and then there’s the resulting child’s health needs after that.</p>

<p>BCP are optional for the most part…there are cheaper options. If someone needs them for health reasons, they should be covered. Just as cosmetic surgery isn’t covered, but if someone breaks their nose in an accident, then plastic surgery is covered. </p>

<p>There are numerous things that aren’t covered…but the reason for not covering them isn’t to “control” the group that typically needs the service. For YEARS, many insurance plans wouldn’t cover dermatology for zits (maybe some still don’t). These companies weren’t trying to control teens. And, yes, treatment is often seriously needed…even for self-image reasons. But, many companies refused to pay. </p>

<p>Heck, I can remember when contact lens weren’t covered…cuz glasses were a much cheaper alternative. Now contacts are covered, but Lasik usually isn’t. That isn’t to “control” people with bad eyes. </p>

<p>We have excellent insurance, but I have no idea if BCPs are covered. I’ve never considered using them…not just for religious reasons, but because I also think that they are unhealthy and will eventually be very stronly linked to the increases in various cancers like breast, uterine, etc. Heck, that info may already be known, but PC-ness would keep that info down.</p>

<p>As for wanting to “control women”…ha ha…what about all the guys that won’t use rubbers cuz they ruin the experience, so they expect/want/insist that their women go on the Pill. Or they won’t get vasectomies because of some weird penile fear, so their women feel pressured to be on BCPs for a very long time. Now, that’s controlling.</p>

[sylvan8798]

<p>

@mom2collegekids

weird penile fear

great name for a rock band. ;)</p>

[stillwater]

<p>Mom2college:
Just so you know, BCPs dramatically reduce the risk of uterine cancer. It’s these women with irregular periods for years not on any hormone treatment who get uterine (endometrial) cancer. They also cut the risk of ovarian cancer by 50%. That benefit is really amazing. Unfortunately ovarian cancer treatment is successful less than 50% of the time. So if we really want to reduce ovarian cancer, more women should take BCPs.</p>

[alh]

<p>While I, personally, prefer barrier methods to pills, patches, implants or shots…
supporting a woman’s right to choose her own method of birth control, or supporting a woman’s right to choose not to use birth control, gives power to women while restricting that choice is an exercise of control over women by outside forces.</p>