Today this lovely article came out, describing how women pay more than twice what men do on high-deductible health insurance plans “favored by many employers”.
And in case you missed it, a court recently ruled that it was OK for an insurance plan to exclude all forms of birth control. The reason? Because “Contraception is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy”. They are saying that contraception is not related to pregnancy. I shit you not.
These same companies pay for fucking Viagra and Rogaine with nary a problem. But a woman can’t get birth control…why? Women are basically penalized by insurance companies because they require treatment for pregnancy, breast issues and other female medical procedures including routine gynecological checkups. Without women the human race could not go on. Women should not be penalized for being the carrier of a baby created by two people or being in possession of the human organs for feeding these children.
I’m tired of the lame excuse that some people think birth control is wrong. Hello?!? Some people think drunk driving is wrong. Some people think smoking is wrong. Some people think driving a “car” that gets 11 miles to the gallon is wrong. But you don’t see the court rulings preventing people from drinking alcohol, smoking or buying gas.
I am angry. I’m angry women are being denied birth control at pharmacies. I’m angry at insurance companies that will pay for a man to get his dick hard for four hours while some of my friends must pay for their birth control out of pocket. I’m angry about the fact that when I have a baby my career will be on the line because I might want to actually raise my child myself instead of having a stranger do it. I’m angry about the fact that it costs so damn much to have a baby in the first place. I’m just pissed.
I have different indignation levels on these two issues. The fact that women pay more than men for commercial health insurance, IMO, isn’t fundamentally more unfair than the fact that young men pay more than young women for commercial auto insurance. Actuarially speaking, the reason is that young men overall tend to cost more in auto insurance claims, just as women overall tend to cost more in medical expenses.
I don’t think the imbalance in men’s and women’s health premiums is fair, but it’s more because biology isn’t fair than because insurance companies hate women. I think we need to deal with the issue by broadening the risk pool with single-payer health insurance.
The denial of coverage for contraception, on the other hand, sucks ass. Especially combined with the unquestioning acceptance of the necessity for coverage of treatments like Viagra. Age-related diminution of sexual performance ability in males is defined as a pathology to be avoided by “necessary” medication, while unwanted pregnancy in females is not. That makes no sense to me at all.
Yeah, you’d think that the idiots at the health insurance companies would WANT to prevent women from getting pregnant, you know, because it’s so incredibly fucking expensive. Even a low-risk pregnancy with a normal vaginal birth costs tens of thousands of dollars.
But no, we won’t cover contraception, and we’ll pay $5 a pill for Viagra. And then bitch about our costs and raise our rates. Because, you know, it can’t be our fault.
No contraception + erect penises = more babies. Which means more expenses you have to cover, fuckwit.
Make sure and read the entire article. Most HDHP plans cover preventative care at no cost or a minimal copay. The deductible is not applied to those services. That is where most of the extra cost for women comes in, the extra preventative care.
Yes, there are extra costs that women incur if they become pregnant. That would cost them more than men under traditional copayment plans as well because it is an extra hospital stay.
The extra costs they refer to are in medical costs, not monthly premium. I have never seen a business insurance policy where gender made any difference in the monthly rate. It is not even a factor with any plan I’ve ever seen.
I sell health insurance to businesses and I would have to say much of that article is misleading. I understand your vitriol and agree that there are things that could be done better, including that every insurance plan should cover birth control.
Although I see the point about contracetives (which are covered in some plans) I don’t see the point otherwise. If your care costs more on a assigned risk basis, why shouldn’t you pay more?
Men pay higher auto insurance for the first third of their life, and that isn’t discrimination- it’s just the way it is.
Just found out that my job does not give paid maternity leave. I work for a public school. If you don’t have enough sick days to cover it, you just do not get a paycheck. As if you weren’t about to be broke enough for the next 21 years, right?
Ditto on the birth control not being covered-- that’s bullshit. I doubt too many thinking people would say otherwise.
I actually have. At the restaurant I worked at 12 years ago (a long time ago, I realize) the guys’ premium was $35/mo. Mine was $92/mo. Because I could get pregnant and for no other reason.
Birth control was not covered.
(But what if I was a virgin? A strict Catholic? A lesbian, I asked? Nope. Still had to pay almost three times as much.)
I’m a really good driver. Never been in anything close to an accident. I still paid more for auto insurance because men are a higher liability. Sucks for me.
It may well be financially stupid not to pay for contraceptives. I can tell you, though, that I have worked for an insurance company for 23 years, and such firms offer whatever is profitable, as a rule. They are really not concerned with gender equity or moral decisions, by and large. If offering coverage for contraceptives attracts enough revenue (or produces a sufficient expense reduction) relative to the cost of providing it, they’ll offer it, believe me. They love making money.
But my point is that it’s not a “they’ll pay for a guy, why not a girl” issue, ISTM. Viagra is to treat a specific medical condition: erectile dysfunction. Hysterectomies are covered too, even though some policies won’t pay for a guy’s Rogaine–and that doesn’t mean guys can bitch over this “inequity.”
Contraceptives are not in the same category. Insurance doesn’t pay for the pill (for many policies), nor does it pay for condoms. That’s not what medical insurance is for, would be the argument. But in every instance, the insurance company gets to decide what they’ll cover, they’ll calculate a price that will provide them an acceptable profit, and we get to decide if we want their coverage. For the most part, I think that’s the way it should be, even when that inconveniences me in a given instance.
Preach it, sister. I think it is downright criminal that insurers will cover Rogaine and Viagra and not simple birth control. It makes no sense other than that it is just plain discriminatory. How on earth can this be justified?
BC pills are are probably the most commonly-used medication amongst women 16-50 years old. We will have to take it for most of our childbearing years - every single day for some 30 or more years. It is a maintenance medication, something that is necessary for women to maintain their basic health. Heck - it’s not even that expensive. It’s been around long enough that there are plenty of affordable generics.
Not only that, but covering BC prevents more expensive care down the line, whether it be for abortion or for pregnancy, childbirth, and then the coverage for the child.
What also angers me is that my insurer - although they do cover BC pills - they will only cover one prescription per month. This means that I can’t just fill an entire year’s prescription at once, and have my supply handy throughout the year. No… I have to make sure to remember every month to refill the prescription and go to the pharmacy to pick it up. (However, if I get my prescription through mail-order pharmacy, I can get 3 months supply at a time).
Oh and god forbid that you need to fill your prescription early, like if you are going on vacation or something. They won’t let you refill your prescription if it has been less than a month since you got your last one (unless you call your insurer and swear up and down that you are going on a vacation or will be on a trip).
Why must we have to jump through so many hoops and wade through so much red tape just to obtain a harmless*, essential maintenance medication?
*AFAIK, you can’t overdose on BC pills, and they aren’t abused to get high like Oxycontin or Tylenol 3 and aren’t being sold to junkies on the streets. So why treat them like a dangerous controlled substance?
This is what never made sense to me about insurance companies not covering birth control pills. If I got an abortion every couple of months, they would have covered that. But they didn’t cover birth control pills, which would have to be much cheaper
I won’t question that it’s the most commonly-used medication in that bracket, as I have no idea. But I’d say that the overwhelming majority of women don’t “need” BC pills. There are some, certainly, who require some form of hormonal BC in order to help some of the symptoms of PMS. But there’s plenty of extremely cheap (or even free) methods of birth control - condoms, female condoms, spermicides, sponges, diaphragms, and that’s just what I remember from sex ed in high school. So I don’t think it’s a medical necessity.
This is not to say that I in any way disagree with the OP. I think that health insurance industry (and for that matter, the broader “health industry”) are money-grubbing bastards who deserve to burn. It would be lovely if they’d cover hormonal BC methods, or any at all, or for that matter if the pharmaceutical companies made any medication affordable. The whole system is terribly fucked up.
That’s got nothing to do with birth control pills- the same applies to my husband’s prescriptions. It’s because they don’t want to pay in January for your November pills when you may change insurers in June. They apparently save enough with the mail order pharmacy to more than make up for the risk of giving you three months of prescriptions when you might switch after one or two.
From the fuckwitted insurance company’s long term perspective, covering BC or not has minimal effect on reducing the cost they have to outlay for pregnancy over the total lifetime of a policyholder. Birth control usually means someone is putting off pregnancy until later in life… not avoiding it altogether. Pregnancy later in life carries in increased risk of complications.
Now, if this was about insurance companies refusing to cover elective sterilization, 'cept for that “elective” part, you’d have a point.
There are a goodly number of reasons women take birth control pills, other than contraception. Case in point, my husband had a vasectomy in '91, and our youngest was 15 when my doctor prescribed them for me. I myself was 49 years old at that point, and it was the first time I had used them. But I was severely anemic, and the fibroids I have weren’t helping that any by causing me to lose copious amounts of blood every month. The pills made a huge difference in that situation. They certainly weren’t necessary for contraceptive purposes, but my insurance company still didn’t cover them. Medicine for any other serious condition they would have paid for.
