<p>Of course, the cost of birth control pills is substantially less than the cost of prenatal care and childbirth. But most women who want to use the pill are already using it, even if their employer’s health insurance policy doesn’t pick up all or even part or the cost. The only way that an insurance company, or self-insured employer, will actually save money by paying for birth control pills is if such a provision enticed women who are not already using birth control pills to do so, and if those women actually used the birth control pills correctly to prevent “unwanted” the births that trigger those prenatal and childbirth expenses. Otherwise, the costs of birth control are simply shifted from the patient to the insurer, with no resulting benefit to the insurer that it wasn’t already getting from those women who were paying for their own birth control. </p>
<p>None of the blanket assurances that “providing free contraception saves money” seem to deal with the realities of the situation. It seems particularly ironic that the federal government, which keeps digging us deeper into debt by “investing” in various useless stimulus and bailout programs, thinks it knows what is in the best financial interest of employers and insurers.</p>
If you read the Time article I just linked, one of the studies referenced there says that paying for contraception increases the likelihood that it will be used–and that’s what saves money. Some of the cheaper forms of birth control aren’t as effective as the pill, either.</p>
The point is to reduce the number of pregnancies/children, not to eliminate them altogether. Most families now seem to have 2-3, not the 4-5, or more that were common in our generation, or the huge families common in previous generations. My mother and FIL were from families of 8, MIL was one of 11. What is the probability of that now?</p>
<p>Futureweatherman, yes a woman might be on bcps for a while and then stop to have children and thus causing your “double whammy” BUT she will probably use bcps to limit the number of children she will have. Most women today have two or three children (2.5) unlike women of the past who often had 5 or more. So by that alone, bcps save money for insurers (and families). Less kids equals less claims.</p>
<p>“If you read the Time article I just linked, one of the studies referenced there says that paying for contraception increases the likelihood that it will be used–and that’s what saves money.”</p>
<p>And if you read the fact-checking article linked by another poster, you will find several studies concluding that contraception coverage increases costs to insurers, precisely because women who want to use birth control pills will assume the costs themselves if their insurance policy does not provide coverage. Remember, we are talking about women who are covered by employer-provided health insurance policies, not the poorly-educated, low-income women who are experiencing most of the expensive unintended pregnancies that insurers (and society in general) would most like to prevent.</p>
<p>There are plenty of poorly educated low, income women who have group health care plans. A large institution employs people of all education and income levels. Many of these women have little disposable income and, if insurance doesn’t cover something, they are not going to get it - even if it is what most of us would call cheap.</p>
<p>I wish people on this thread would remember that.</p>
<p>Regarding the current US fertility rate, it has decreased over the years (with some dips and bumps), to the point where it is lower than the replacement rate. This would indicate that US women are not having trouble controlling their fertility under status quo conditions.</p>
<p>I’ve noticed, too, that insurance companies do not save any money covering cancer or heart patients. I think, since the only measure of importance is whether or not this saves insurance companies money that insurance companies be allowed to cover whatever it is they feel will maximize their profits, or non-profits, as they may sometimes like to call themselves.</p>
<p>So, yes, by all means, no mandates on what insurance must cover. Let people buy health insurance made up by the employer and the insurance companies. I would suggest, then, that when the insurance companies refuse to cover type II diabetes due to the self-inflicted nature of that disease, that this is fine. IN fact, why do we bother to regulate the way they cover cancer, at all? </p>
<p>I think, really, it should be up to the companies, and given the expense, heart patients should be the first to have no mandated coverage at all.</p>
<p>This the “logic” you guys are using. It’s hillarious.</p>
<p>I mean, honestly, I have no history of heart issues, and a low BMI, and high good cholesteral, and low bad, and very good blood pressure, and so, why on earth should I be made to pay such high premiums to cover the cost of heart patients? It’s ridiculous I should be expected to pay this cost. I resent it. Really people? Seriously?</p>
<p>poetgrl,
I don’t think anyone here is relying on the cost argument. People are simply asking for evidence and clarification of that issue because it is counterintuitive. All or most of the other conditions you cite are not required to be offered at no co-pay for treatment, remember.</p>
<p>Yes, Bay, I can see how someone like me, who has never in all of these years had anything other than well-visits, and a couple of rounds of antibiotics, as well as a couple of very uncomplicated child-births, is a massive drain on the system.</p>
<p>Given that nobody in my entire family history has died of mostly anything besides old age or accidents, and my mother, who is on medicare STILL has nothing other than well-visits and preventative care, I don’t foresee ever getting anything out of this system. </p>
<p>So, let’s just get rid of the system, altogether. Why should I even participate? </p>
<p>Yep. I can really see the BCP issue is going to be the main expense. Whew! Gonna wipe us all out, compared to the end of life care and the heart patients. Are heart transplants covered? Liver transplants? Hip replacements? Why should we pay for people to have hip replacements? </p>
<p>Hey - keep your hands off my hip replacement! Had nothing to do with calcium deficiency BTW. One of my best friends had a double lung heart transplant. The cost was and continues to be more than I can wrap my head around. I don’t begrudge a penny of it because he’s worth it, but the rest of us are helping to keep him alive.</p>
<p>Your premise (opinion?) is just as good as mine. And I concur that the decision is not economic. Indeed, that was my point in challenging your ‘stat’ that bc ‘saves’ money. :)</p>
<p>Yes, bc is “cheap” but it used to be a lot cheaper to college students until Congress raised the price in 2005 as part of the budget. (Congress could easily just lower the price back to what it was. Alternatively, the FDA could make bc OTC and prices would plummet even further.)</p>
<p>Re: Maternal and Child health saving money: that’s a real easy one. The biggest bang for the preventive health care buck is immunizations. They easily trump all others. Including immunizations into the total pool of MCH, makes it look value-oriented.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why we’re dwelling on the cost/benefit of bcp’s to insurance companies. I have yet to hear of an insurer who’s questioning this issue from a financial perspective. They’re largely silent, just like they were silent when a lot of states passed legislation saying that all insurance companies had to offer mammograms at zero co-pay, or one annual wellness visit at zero co-pay. </p>
<p>If there were a financial downside to offering bcp at no co-pay, I would suspect we would have heard from the insurers by now. If they’re not concerned about the cost of bcps at no co-pay, isn’t that evidence it’s not that big a deal to them?</p>
<p>Portgrl,
I don’t understand the point of your last post. All of my private plans have charged a co-pay for bcps. Why did they do this if not charging saves money? I’d like to know if anyone knows the answer to that.</p>
<p>@ Hunt Thanks for the link. Guess that “moots” my point then, eh? But I still have trouble believing that it wouldn’t be covered already if it was beneficial for the insurance companies.</p>
<p>Alh quote “While I, personally, prefer barrier methods to pills, patches, implants or shots…”</p>
<p>Why? Because you suspect these things really are more dangerous than we’re being told? I think so. </p>
<p>But…I think there’s too many people that really, really, really want their women to bear the BC burden, so that info is being squelched. Swallowing unnecessary hormones for 3 weeks of every month, year in and year out, cannot be healthy (or having them shoved into your arm for a constant artificial stream.)</p>
<p>What kills me is that the same women who won’t even take one Tylenol pill when they’re pregnant, will put their own health at a much, much greater risk by taking long term un-needed hormone pills. (I applaud their concern for their unborn child, but one tylenol isn’t dangerous.)</p>
<p>^^^^ I see where you’re coming from, mom. Very interesting take (from someone who doesn’t really like BCP’s either, though I am a male, so my opinion is moot)</p>
Really people? Seriously?</p>