all I know is, my insurance premiums went up substantially this year. yippie skippy. We were already paying close to a third of my salary for insurance.
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 1, 2012 16:43:09 GMT -5
Yay! I think it's fabulous. Especially since just a few weeks ago a friend was lamenting that even though she has insurance (Kaiser), she's currently out of network because she's living in Hawaii for a few months, and she pays for coverage in California. They wanted to charge her $100/month to refill her current prescription, written by a doc in her home state. If she wanted to change to something less expensive, she'd have to pay OOP to go to a new doctor locally. Fuck that.
Yay! I think it's fabulous. Especially since just a few weeks ago a friend was lamenting that even though she has insurance (Kaiser), she's currently out of network because she's living in Hawaii for a few months, and she pays for coverage in California. They wanted to charge her $100/month to refill her current prescription, written by a doc in her home state. If she wanted to change to something less expensive, she'd have to pay OOP to go to a new doctor locally. Fuck that.
There's your economic incentive.
Every freaking time I get my BC refilled, the pharmacist say, "Okay, your total will be... $144.45?!?! Um, let me see if I can run your insurance again..." Nope, that's the price for the generic, with insurance. It's a 90 day prescription, so almost $50/month.
I had the adorable male pharmacist once say, "Well, it's cheaper than a baby!"
I had to pay 80 a month OOP for my BCP when I had coverage through a catholic school.
Its still cheaper than my damn rate increase because of it. Its killing me! We are going to get to a point where we are just going to say "screw insurance." Either that, or sell our house and live in a tent.
You know how liberal and pro women's health I am but even I think this is pointless pandering. I mean, I'm happy to save the $5 copay and all but everything I've seen shows that affordability of BCP isn't a major issue (though access and affordability of the doc to prescribe them is) so I just don't see how this is going to have that great of an impact on women's health.
all I know is, my insurance premiums went up substantially this year. yippie skippy. We were already paying close to a third of my salary for insurance.
Well, mine more than doubled thanks to Scott Walker, so there's plenty of hate to spread around.
Part 1: There's no evidence that costs of birth control are a barrier to obtaining birth control. Large national pharmacies sell generics for as low as $4-$10 (except in Wisconsin because of some crazy law about loss leader drugs there - h/t bridey).
In addition, there was a recent government survey of teenagers who got pregnant and it showed that lack of access to birth control (not just costs, but also getting to a pharmacy, getting the prescription, etc.) was very rarely cited as a reason they ended up pregnant.
So teenagers are saying they can get birth control, and for the vast majority of the rest of us basic BCPs are pretty cheap without insurance. If you can't afford $4-$10, you're in a position to get either government help or Planned Parenthood help with this.
Of course, everytime I start this thread, there are anecdotes about the person who can't take generic pills or just use condoms. And there's always a threat about planned parenthood going away, so I'll just list those here. But generally for the vast majority of women, affording basic birth control is not an issue.
So part 2... Removing copays bends the cost curve upward. I prefer nuvaring. Other BCPs work for me too, but nuvaring is convenient and easy and I like it. That said, I have at various points in my life decided to go with orthotriwhatevergeneric because my insurance would only charge me $10 for that versus $50 for nuvaring, and while I prefer nuvaring, I didn't prefer it enough to pay $40 out of my pocket. Those are cost incentives at work.
Making everything "free!" removes this cost incentive for the consumer entirely. So now why wouldn't I get Yaz simply because I saw an ad for it last night and it said I'd be less bloated? There is literally no reason to try to save costs--you're just screwing yourself out of the cadillac free birth control you're now entitled to.
So in short - we've solved a problem that didn't exist, and massively bent the cost curve up, rather than down. If you're a drug company making $$$ birth control, this is awesome. If you pay for health insurance, or pay taxes, it's exactly the wrong thing to do.
Personally have no problem with birth control being covered along with a host of other reproductive services, but I dont' see why BCP shouldn't have some sort of co-pay. Maybe not $25 but why not $5 or 10?
Personally have no problem with birth control being covered along with a host of other reproductive services, but I dont' see why BCP shouldn't have some sort of co-pay. Maybe not $25 but why not $5 or 10?
yeah, mandating that birth control needs to be covered on the same schedule as some other standard drugs, I get. Like if you are just taking generic orthwhatever then it should be covered with every other generic. Non-generics (like my preferred BC - the patch) should be covered like other brandname but mainstream drugs. I'm not sure if this was in fact NOT happening previously, but if it wasn't, I could see mandating that it be so.
But I don't really understand what the point of making all these things totally "free" is. Is a co-pay really that big of an obstacle to getting your yearly pap and checkup or your monthly BC?
I'm actually asking. Anybody around who can explain why they're in favor? I'd like to hear both sides on this one because I've never really understood.
Personally have no problem with birth control being covered along with a host of other reproductive services, but I dont' see why BCP shouldn't have some sort of co-pay. Maybe not $25 but why not $5 or 10?
yeah, mandating that birth control needs to be covered on the same schedule as some other standard drugs, I get. Like if you are just taking generic orthwhatever then it should be covered with every other generic. Non-generics (like my preferred BC - the patch) should be covered like other brandname but mainstream drugs. I'm not sure if this was in fact NOT happening previously, but if it wasn't, I could see mandating that it be so.
But I don't really understand what the point of making all these things totally "free" is. Is a co-pay really that big of an obstacle to getting your yearly pap and checkup or your monthly BC?
I'm actually asking. Anybody around who can explain why they're in favor? I'd like to hear both sides on this one because I've never really understood.
I think part of it is "is it preventative medicine or not". I know I was astonished a few years ago to discover that basically the only "preventative" medicine covered by my insurance were weightloss medicines and smoking cessation. I was slightly snarky about it. I get they losing weight and quitting smoking will prevent a host of diseases but treat them isn't preventative since you already started smoking.
Personally have no problem with birth control being covered along with a host of other reproductive services, but I dont' see why BCP shouldn't have some sort of co-pay. Maybe not $25 but why not $5 or 10?
Because it's considered preventative. This isn't about making birth control copay free but rather ALL preventative drugs.
And I highly doubt the claim that birth control's expense doesn't have any measurable effect. Do I just have poor friends who've stupidly decided that pull/pray was preferable to spending $50/month? Do the women who try to extend their pack by taking pills every other day only exist in mythology (and in my acquaintance?)
Personally have no problem with birth control being covered along with a host of other reproductive services, but I dont' see why BCP shouldn't have some sort of co-pay. Maybe not $25 but why not $5 or 10?
Because it's considered preventative. This isn't about making birth control copay free but rather ALL preventative drugs.
AH. Ok. That makes more sense to me. I somehow missed that in all the ACA debate.
Making everything "free!" removes this cost incentive for the consumer entirely. So now why wouldn't I get Yaz simply because I saw an ad for it last night and it said I'd be less bloated? There is literally no reason to try to save costs--you're just screwing yourself out of the cadillac free birth control you're now entitled to.
While I think you have a point, there's a reason some cheap BC and some not-so-cheap BC exists. There are dozens of BC pills, and that's because different formulations work for different people. So, in consultation with your doctor, you will, hopefully, find a product that is right for you, allows you to have a sex drive, doesn't cause migraines, and won't make you cry all the time or gain 30 pounds. The real answer is that Yaz works for some people and Orthotricyclen works for some people and neither works for some people.
So the flip side is that by taking the cost of the drug out of the equation, it allows people to figure out what drug works for them without HAVING to rely on the only one they can get for $4 at WalMart.
I definitely see Y4M's argument. however, I see BCP as in the preventative category. I don't have to pay copays for PJ's well-baby visit or my yearly PAP, and I see how it makes sense for BCP to be lumped into the preventative no-copay category.
Personally have no problem with birth control being covered along with a host of other reproductive services, but I dont' see why BCP shouldn't have some sort of co-pay. Maybe not $25 but why not $5 or 10?
Because it's considered preventative. This isn't about making birth control copay free but rather ALL preventative drugs.
And I highly doubt the claim that birth control's expense doesn't have any measurable effect. Do I just have poor friends who've stupidly decided that pull/pray was preferable to spending $50/month? Do the women who try to extend their pack by taking pills every other day only exist in mythology (and in my acquaintance?)
Link please? I see the ACA mandated some other preventative services for women, in addition to BCP, but I'm not seeing anything about all preventative drugs.
I (and at least 4 other women I know) are on a specific form of birth control recommended by their doctors. Mine was recommended by my oncologist and my ob/gyn, and I've asked if I should switch to something else, and have been given a resounding "no." I'm actually lucky compared to a couple of my friends, because there actually IS a generic available for my BC, though I'm not supposed to be taking it, upon my oncologist + ob/gyn + ex-H's advice.
Further, my ex-H, douche that he was, knew his shit when it came to birth control. He was a chemical engineer for a large pharmaceutical company before he went to law school (it's how he got that "cushy" patent law job where he's making a bazillion dollars) and he was extremely adamant about not taking generic birth control. There are plenty of drugs where it's perfectly fine for almost all of us to take the generic formulation (antibiotics, pain meds, etc); birth control is not one of them.
A lot of women can take the generic form of a birth control a be just fine. But a lot of women can't.
The cost of my birth control under my old kick-ass insurance plan was $150 every 3 months. With my new shitty plan (high deductible, shitty rx drug benefits), the brand name is close to $300, and the generic is $160 every three months.
So, yeah. I can't just fucking walk into a store a plop down $4 and get my birth control. It's just not happening. And, no, my story isn't rare. I'm not the majority, but I'm not an insignificant minority, either.
The NWLC has actually put together a quick video to explain why this whole "but women can just go to Target and pick up BC for $4" thing is bullshit, and they do a much better job than I (and include a link for more info at the end), so here it is:
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 1, 2012 19:38:03 GMT -5
Yeah, I should be more specific as saying drugs is misleading. There's a particular classification of preventive medicine (not drugs) that's covered. There is a table I found awhile ago, so I'll see if I can find it.
IIRC, most medication is not actually covered, but preventive services are. Off the top of my head for medications that are covered, for sure birth control and vaccines, but I think also folic acid, aspirin, and a few other assorted meds.