These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The need for and cost of mandating private insurance coverage of contraception.
    Author: Gold RB.
    Journal: Guttmacher Rep Public Policy; 1998 Aug; 1(4):5-7. PubMed ID: 12294379.
    Abstract:
    A public policy debate in the US is considering whether it is in the public interest to mandate that private, employment-related health insurance plans cover contraception. Industry representatives oppose mandates as unnecessary and costly, but women's health advocates point out that mandates were necessary to remove other health insurance disadvantages to women. For example, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 was necessary to mandate coverage for maternity care. US women rely on contraception to avoid pregnancy for approximately 20 years during their reproductive lives, but health insurance policies vary widely in the amount of contraceptive coverage provided. Some fail to cover contraception but cover sterilization and abortion. Coverage is important because women cite cost as a consideration when choosing a method, and some of the more effective methods are more costly. Estimates show that the cost of covering the full range of approved reversible contraception would be a minimal $21.40/employee/year, of which employers would pay $17.12, a 0.6% increase in costs. The cost of plans that already cover some reversible methods would increase even less. Public opinion overwhelmingly favors mandated contraception coverage, even if employee costs were to increase. Congress is considering legislation to mandate coverage in private, employment-related plans, and the industry has indicated that it will not fight the legislation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]