<p>
</p>
<p>But insurance has also traditionally covered preventive medical treatments (annual check-ups, immunizations, etc.), and BCPs are certainly preventive medicine.</p>
<p>Also, do insurance companies cover female infertility treatments now? They didn’t when I was of relevant age, and I had friends who spent 10s of thousands of dollars out of pocket trying to “fix something that has gone wrong.” When Viagra was invented, it was immediately covered by insurance, however. Arrgh.</p>
<p>“BC Pills when you get down to the basics are something that isn’t necessary to be taken for your health. A woman can easily be celibate.”</p>
<p>You’re completely incorrect medically. BC Pills can be treatment for acne and can be treatment for extra heavy periods. They have benefits in terms of prevention of uterine and endometrial cancer. They most certainly have health benefits beyond that of contraception. I myself took them for quite a few years after having permanent sterilization because of the health benefits they provided. Viagra, OTOH, does <em>not</em> treat any condition outside of the sexual one.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree about some meds needing prescriptions, p2n. I was just making a point. </p>
<p>In truth, insurance companies pay for meds that are preventative in nature all the time (think all vaccinations). Prescriptions paid for by insurance companies arent just for “treatment of a legitimate condition” (term used by another poster). Their goal, as a big industry, is two-fold. They want (hopefully) to maintain health, but they also want to save/make money. Part of the way the save/make money is preventing things that will cost them money to take care of. Just as diseases that can be prevented with vaccinations are costly to treat (and therefore smart to prevent), so too is pregnancy (especially a problem pregnancy), birth and delivery expensive, not to mention the cost of another covered life for the insurance company. </p>
<p>In truth, use of Viagra is elective, not necessary. One could easily argue that it should not be covered by insurance companies. BTW, it is used in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension in dogs. Too bad it is so hard to get good veterinary insurance coverage for our dear pets.</p>
<p>ooh-- crosspost with bay. Good points bay.</p>
<p>BCP’s are also frequently used as a treatment for irregular periods.</p>
<p>Yes, BCPs have been used for lots of things-- even headache management (though it usually excerbates headaces, unless they are hormonally induced migraines). It should be covered by insurers regardless of the reason it is dispensed. </p>
<p>Viagra was originally developed as an antihypertensive. Then it appeared to have benefit for treatment of angina. Then it became apparent that the vasodilating effect seemed to be apparent in one particular organ, and the rest is history. Again–its all about $$$. Big seller as a treatment for ED. Would probably not have made as much $$ for the drug companies as a simple cardiac or vascular medicine. And when insurance companies sell plans to big employers, they want to offer benefits that the employees (and the employers) want-- that will keep them in the office as much as possible and make them happy campers. Accordingly, both BCPs and Viagra should be covered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sorry for going off topic, but this really grabbed my eye. D2 started BCP in February for many reasons listed above. She has been back for checks, and her blood pressure is fine. However, about two-three months after starting these hormones, she started getting headaches. I suggested she follow up again with a medical professional (she was prescribed them at school, but is now home for three weeks), but she doesn’t think it’s related to the pill since it didn’t start for almost three months later. I also think she’s gotten such great relief from the pill that she’s afraid they’ll take her off it… she’d rather put up with the headaches than all the other stuff.</p>
<p>Physician here. Big problem with people in health care- eg pharmacists/nurses- being able to deny a patient prescribed medications because the medication doesn’t fit their personal code- as so many posters have stated, there are many reasons to take bcp’s. The patient shouldn’t have to justify to the pharmacist their reason for taking bcp’s (pet peeve of mine- insufficient knowledge of the patient and/or medicine and choosing their treatment by withholding medications), and patients shouldn’t have to shop for emergency rooms based on who happens to be working when they need help. We should ban chemotherapeutic agents by that logic as many interfere with fertility… so what if a woman dies of cancer, she has no right to prevent a possible pregnancy by taking something that could interfere with one…</p>
<p>It is disgusting how pharmaceutical companies use advertising to create a disorder so they have a market for their drugs. Never heard of any man who couldn’t lead his life without getting an erection- maybe this is something the priests should speak out on… and make it known that Viagra should be banned for older couples because it is unnatural for no longer fertile couples to make love as the only purpose of sex is procreation… and of course no single man should be allowed…</p>
<p>There is a double standard. Every sperm is sacred, but once a child is born there is no medical or other care insisted upon. A woman has no rights to her body… her physical and mental well being don’t count; but if a man can’t…</p>
<p>Somebody pushed my button with this topic. There is so much hypocrisy among people who think they are moral. I could vent for hours, so glad there are other sane/smart people out there on CC.</p>
<p>btw - marite…it may help to stop answering the Viagra spam ads. :D</p>
<p>Gotcha, jym.</p>
<p>
Well, what about conditions for which pain meds are not medically necessary? I’ve had prescriptions for tendinitis which are just ibuprofen, but four times more ibuprofen per pill than the over-the-counter stuff. I could surely have sucked it up and dealt with the pain, or else used a perfectly viable over-the-counter alternative. My insurance company still covered the pills.</p>
<p>And as jym brings up, birth control pills are preventative medicine – risk-of-death-wise, it’s much safer to be on the pill than to be pregnant.</p>
<p>Beautiful, exquisite post, wis75!
I agree with everything you’ve said 150%. Receptionists should have no right to deny a potential patient an appointment to seek BCPs, and pharmacy staff should have no right IMO to refuse to dispense such meds. Just as an employer has the right to set a dress code and general corporate policy, so too should an employer have the right to deny employment to any person who intends to impose their personal beliefs on the clients of the business. It’s fine to have one’s personal beliefs-- but it is not fine to try to impose them on others who do not share those beliefs. </p>
<p>And yes, teriwtt- unfortunately BCP’s can cause or aggravate headaches. They can also cause weight gain. We used to joke in grad school that perhaps that was the method of action of the pill-- give you a headache so you don’t feel like doing anything (“not tonight dear, I have a headache”) and makes you gain weight so you feel less attractive…</p>
<p>Oh and as an aside, I went to the dermatologist once to have moles checked. She gave me a bunch of prescriptions for heavens knows what-- moisturizers with exfoliant type stuff, stuff for hair follicles… I don’t really recall. I filled the prescriptions (all covered by insurance) put the ones in the fridge that I was told to keep here, and put the rest under my bathroom sink… where they all still remain, untouched. None of these prescriptions was truly “necessary” but insurance covered them all. Anyone need some slightly old, but unused derm meds?</p>
<p>p2n:</p>
<p>You can come to my house and press the delete button. ;)</p>
<p>marite-
You’re gonna let p2n come to your house to press your buttons? Pictures, we want pictures… :)</p>
<p>jym: Ah, but they’re going to be deleted. :(</p>
<p>Only if you post them on youtube first, marite :D</p>
<p>But you can’t link to Youtube on CC!</p>
<p>That was my point, marite (sorry to confuse). If you post them on youtube and then to cc, they’ll be deleted. So, bring 'em here first!! Then we can put them out on youtube from here. I am hopeful, given the importance of such photos of such esteemed cc’ers, you will be given great latitude.</p>
<p>Should we expect anything different from this Administration?</p>
<p>Given the topic of this thread, I think your point is right on, originaloog-- this is an upright, upstanding administration ;)</p>
<p>Ok… getting back to topic… I am still in awe of wis75’s post. Bravo again. It’s worth repeating.</p>