Why Women Don’t Think Their Birth Control Is Free

More than half of women are still paying for their contraception despite the Affordable Care Act’s mandate, a new survey shows.

A woman holds prescription contraceptives June 13, 2001 in Seattle, Washington. A federal judge ruled on that Bartell Drug Co., which operates 50 drug stores in the Seattle region must pay for prescription contraceptives, like the birth control pills shown here, for its female employees. The class-action suit was brought against Bartell Drug Co. by Jennifer Erickson, a 27 year-old pharmacist with the company, and may lead employers across the country to do the same.
National Journal
Clara Ritger
May 15, 2014, 12:42 p.m.

Obama­care made con­tra­cep­tion free. So why do only 42 per­cent of sexu­ally act­ive wo­men re­port hav­ing their birth con­trol fully covered?

In part, it’s be­cause some wo­men who re­port us­ing birth con­trol rely on male con­doms — which are not covered un­der the Af­ford­able Care Act’s con­tra­cep­tion man­date. The health law re­quires that new in­sur­ance policies cov­er all FDA-ap­proved con­tra­cep­tion pre­scribed for wo­men without cost shar­ing, mean­ing that couples us­ing male con­doms still have to pay for them.

That’s a sig­ni­fic­ant num­ber of wo­men, ac­cord­ing to the Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion’s 2013 Wo­men’s Health Sur­vey, re­leased Thursday. Some 63 per­cent of sexu­ally act­ive wo­men rely on male con­doms, and 54 per­cent rely on one con­tra­cept­ive meth­od. Com­pare that with the 48 per­cent of sexu­ally act­ive wo­men who use or­al con­tra­cept­ives — which in­clude birth-con­trol pills — and the 45 per­cent who re­port us­ing two or more con­tra­cept­ive meth­ods, and it’s evid­ent that at least some wo­men are re­ly­ing on male con­doms as their only meth­od of birth con­trol.

An­oth­er reas­on wo­men are re­port­ing that they don’t have their birth con­trol fully covered is simply be­cause their in­sur­ance plan doesn’t have to. Ac­cord­ing to the sur­vey, 31 per­cent of sexu­ally act­ive wo­men re­por­ted that their in­sur­ance covered only part of the costs, which could be be­cause they chose a birth-con­trol meth­od that isn’t covered — such as a brand-name drug — or be­cause they went out of their pro­vider net­work to get it.

In­surers also don’t have to provide con­tra­cept­ive cov­er­age without cost shar­ing for “grand­fathered” plans, the term used to de­scribe older policies that don’t (yet) have to meet the Af­ford­able Care Act’s cov­er­age re­quire­ments. One oth­er ex­emp­tion is for re­li­gious em­ploy­ers who ob­ject to con­tra­cep­tion — and wo­men on those plans are find­ing them­selves foot­ing the full bill.

Mean­while, some wo­men simply don’t know about the birth-con­trol cov­er­age re­quire­ments of the law — and the Cen­ters for Medi­care and Medi­caid Ser­vices is work­ing to fix that. Cara James, dir­ect­or of the CMS Of­fice of Minor­ity Health, said it’s draft­ing an out­reach plan to teach the newly in­sured how to use their cov­er­age, and edu­ca­tion about the be­ne­fits the law re­quires is on­go­ing, es­pe­cially as the agency gears up for the next open-en­roll­ment peri­od. They’re also work­ing to en­sure that doc­tors ex­plain pa­tients’ op­tions when they go in for pre­vent­ive care vis­its.

And mil­lions of Amer­ic­ans still live without health in­sur­ance — which means they’ve got to fig­ure out how to pay for birth con­trol on their own.

The res­ult is that even with the Af­ford­able Care Act’s con­tra­cep­tion man­date, 18 per­cent of sexu­ally act­ive wo­men don’t have con­tra­cept­ive cov­er­age, ac­cord­ing to Kais­er’s sur­vey.

While nearly half of sexu­ally act­ive wo­men use at least one form of con­tra­cep­tion, Kais­er found, one in five aren’t us­ing birth con­trol at all. By the time Kais­er con­ducts its next four-year sur­vey, wo­men’s-health ex­perts ex­pect to see the num­ber of wo­men who re­port hav­ing their con­tra­cep­tion covered in­crease.

“I’m hold­ing my biggest smiles for the day when we’re much closer to 100,” said Amy Al­lina, deputy dir­ect­or of the Na­tion­al Wo­men’s Health Net­work. “We are cer­tainly aware that cost was and is a bar­ri­er to wo­men get­ting con­tra­cept­ive care.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
8 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×