Rejoice ladies! Our birth control is free now!!

[Deleted]

We do need to stop calling them "free" though. I know its semantics, and as bitter as I am, I actually am glad they are covered. But they aren't "free." They are just 100% covered.

[y4m]

Aug 1, 2012 19:43:49 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

Y4M, are you against all preventative services being free or just BC? Not a snark question, I swear.

I think if people want to overpay for insurance that covers preventative care, they should be able to, and if people want to pay that stuff out of pocket, that should be their prerogative. When something is free, or feels free, people consume more of it. And not necessarily in a way that leads to better health outcomes.

[y4m]

BC is particularly troubling though, because the case for why you end up consuming more costly products is so clear, in a way consuming annual checkups isn't.

[polarbearfans]

Aug 1, 2012 19:37:00 GMT -5 arborgold said:

Jumping in with an anecdote, and some info.

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:

[/url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3fcEEcAAkk[/url]
[/quote]

Generic birth control didn't work for me. I was on one that I was doing very well on, no generic so insurance covered and I had a $10 copayment. Generic came out and I had the worst side effects. The brand name would have been $50 and I could not afford that as a student. Because I couldn't take that pill anymore and I can't have estrogen my insurance paid 90% for an IUD even though it specifically was not covered. My doctor wrote a note that I needed a hormonal birth control due to heavy and extremely painful period. They wouldn't pay for the brand name but covered the IUD. Paid $70 and was covered 5 years. Trying pills again since current insurance (better plan than most people i know) will charge me $300 for a new iud and we will be TTC in the next year or two so too high of an expense but I might have to go back to it. BC pills not as good as controlling symptoms. On a generic (diff one since other was so bad) Brand name again is extremely expensive.

[EllieArroway]

Is this just wrong/out of date? From PP about the new law:

Some brands and methods of birth control are covered without co-pays and some aren’t. Health plans are allowed to limit free coverage to some generic drugs and devices. All other birth control options will continue to be available to you with co-pays. To find out what will be free and what won’t, please call the member services number on the back of your health insurance card.

[arborgold]

Aug 1, 2012 22:19:02 GMT -5 EllieArroway said:

Is this just wrong/out of date? From PP about the new law:

Some brands and methods of birth control are covered without co-pays and some aren’t. Health plans are allowed to limit free coverage to some generic drugs and devices. All other birth control options will continue to be available to you with co-pays. To find out what will be free and what won’t, please call the member services number on the back of your health insurance card.

Nope, it's correct. I just got a letter in the mail from my ins co. My BC isn't covered b/c my insurance company decided not to cover it. I could still get it with a co-pay, but my plan doesn't offer rx co-pay coverage, so....

[EllieArroway]

I just found this on healthcare.gov:

"In addition, the rules governing coverage of preventive services, which allow plans to use reasonable medical management to help define the nature of the covered service, also apply to women’s preventive services. Plans will retain the flexibility to control costs and promote efficient delivery of care by, for example, continuing to charge cost sharing for branded drugs if a generic version is available and just as effective and safe."

So the whole Yaz argument is invalid, no? People can't just go out and pick whatever expensive bc method they want.

[y4m]

That's news to me. If its true it makes much more sense. Though I still don't support forcing every plan to cover basic things.

[marynjoe]

Aug 1, 2012 19:57:42 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

We do need to stop calling them "free" though. I know its semantics, and as bitter as I am, I actually am glad they are covered. But they aren't "free." They are just 100% covered.

Agreed.

[emmybean]

So wait. It doesn't even cover all preventative meds? Just... Basic ones?

This is even worse than I thought.

Stupid, worthless, potently financially harmful regulation that does nothing to help the people who need it most.

[NitaX]

Aug 1, 2012 17:55:54 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 1, 2012 17:50:13 GMT -5 @septimus said:

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, I was tired of taking bcp. Tired of paying $25, then $40 a month. It was a cost I begrudgingly paid while I was single. Yes sure using a condom would have sufficed, but I was anti-oopsie while single.

Once I got married, I announced to my H that I was done taking bcp and was pretty sure that it contributed to the weight gain I experienced after being switched from the Patch to a new bcp formulary. If I were single, yes, I'd be all for this.

Even if it increases my premium a little, I wouldn't have cared. Mainly because the premium comes out of my paycheck and I don't really see it or feel it. A $10 or $15 increase to my premium (which was typical for my former job) isn't the same as a $40 drug co-pay each month. This year, our premium increase was about $25 IIRC. So, that is still cheaper and your health benefits aren't taxable so it lowers your taxable income slightly.

[Deleted]

So do we also cover shit like insulin, diabetes testing strips, and asthma meds?

[EllieArroway]

Aug 1, 2012 23:04:09 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

So do we also cover shit like insulin, diabetes testing strips, and asthma meds?

It looks like diabetes testing is covered, but not meds.

Here's a list: www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html

[MrsAxilla]

Aug 1, 2012 23:04:09 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

So do we also cover shit like insulin, diabetes testing strips, and asthma meds?

No. I looked into this the last time this discussion came up. Those meds treat a condition, not prevent one. While they do prevent flare ups of an illness (like an asthma attack) or keep a disease in check (like insulin), they're still just treating the symptoms of an existing disease. They aren't considered preventive medicine.

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2012 0:12:20 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Aug 1, 2012 23:04:09 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

So do we also cover shit like insulin, diabetes testing strips, and asthma meds?

No. I looked into this the last time this discussion came up. Those meds treat a condition, not prevent one. While they do prevent flare ups of an illness (like an asthma attack) or keep a disease in check (like insulin), they're still just treating the symptoms of an existing disease. They aren't considered preventive medicine.

Correct. Technically, yes, not preventative. But if we are speaking from a cost-saving perspective, which is the underlying philosophy of the 100% bc coverage, the pregnancy or abortion that BCP is preventing is considerably less expensive than complications from diabetes (hospitalizations, organ failures, amputations, dialysis, transplants...). So I'm baffled by the financial priorities the ACA sets.

My niece has had type 1 since she was two, and I'd be happy to get specific OOP costs if you'd like. While the ACA is very good for her on one hand (no pre-existing exclusions, no lifetime caps) I'm not aware that it will actually bring costs down for them, and my BIL will continue to work 2 jobs, 7 days a week to afford her life-sustaining medical care.

[Deleted]

nitaw: my preimum increased several hundred this year. HUNDRED. Its not a 10 or 15 increase. 10 or 15 a year is normal. several hundred is not. My employer pays 85% of mine, but 0% of H's and DD's. So we really felt the increase.

The tax savings don't make up the difference (although I pay my for meds out of a medical fund that I save to so either way its pre tax)

[2vermont]

And the lawsuits against the administration and the HHS will continue.

blog.archny.org/index.php/fighting-the-good-fight-for-religious-freedom

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2012 5:08:23 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

nitaw: my preimum increased several hundred this year. HUNDRED. Its not a 10 or 15 increase. 10 or 15 a year is normal. several hundred is not. My employer pays 85% of mine, but 0% of H's and DD's. So we really felt the increase.

The tax savings don't make up the difference (although I pay my for meds out of a medical fund that I save to so either way its pre tax)

I thought Nitaw was talking about a $10 or $15 increase per paycheck deduction, not per year - which would put you in the same ballpark.

Actually, I'm sure she must be, because I doubt she would even notice a $10 increase for the whole year, split over 26 or 52 pay periods. My insurance increases have always been at least $10 a paycheck, and that's $520 a year, so that increase sounds about what we always get hit with.

[NitaX]

Aug 2, 2012 5:08:23 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

nitaw: my preimum increased several hundred this year. HUNDRED. Its not a 10 or 15 increase. 10 or 15 a year is normal. several hundred is not. My employer pays 85% of mine, but 0% of H's and DD's. So we really felt the increase.

The tax savings don't make up the difference (although I pay my for meds out of a medical fund that I save to so either way its pre tax)

Why are they still paying 85% of your costs? I wonder how they structured your deal. We pay 30% of our insurance cost, and of course there is a higher premium amount for families.

Interesting. How large is your school district?

ETA: Sandosik is correct. I'm talking 15bucks a payperiod. So, yes although it is a several hundred dollar increase, it's not a FUCK ME reaction when I get my paycheck. Costs has been increasing for years, so I'm pretty much "meh" when I hear we are going to get a premium increase. Now what does give me pause is discussion about doing spouse out coverage. I'm none too pleased with this talk.

[Deleted]

Mine is several hundred a month. (200 in fact). I already paid close to 1k a month. Now it is over 1k a month.

And its a private school.

What do you mean why do they pay 85%?

[druidp]

I want to hug this thread right now. I've already seen at least three people post on FB something akin to: "Yay for totally free BC for women!"

And I promise to C&P a screenshot if I get a response to my "well, not technically free, but now it's covered" with a "Same diff" retort.

[Deleted]

And before anyone tells me I'm getting screwed, I'm not. H is a partner in small business and theirs jumped the same (we don't use theirs because mine, shockingly, is cheaper and better).

And, our school actually got a refund this summer because we didn't use enough of the premiums we paid, so the increase is not due to too many claims being made last year.

[copzgirl1171]

My insurance shot up 50% but I really don't mind. Really, I am not just offering lip service. I can afford it AND my insurance has always 100% covered preventative care without co-pays (pap smears, prostate screenings, mammograms, immunizations (I paid exactly 0 dollars for babycopz gardasil) flu/pneumonia shots) so the only real benefit that I will see is no co-pay for babycopz BCP.

Health care is expensive. Thats the bottom line and if anything I can pay or do to help helps someone else..count me in.

[Deleted]

Copz: I am happy BCP is free. I am

My concern is those that CANT afford it. Most of us with great insurance from work aren't in that category, kwim? Small business owners that are barely scrapping by, or those who are on private insurance because work doesn't offer it, are going to get screwed.

I don't have an answer, though.

[copzgirl1171]

Aug 2, 2012 7:42:43 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

Copz: I am happy BCP is free. I am

My concern is those that CANT afford it. Most of us with great insurance from work aren't in that category, kwim? Small business owners that are barely scrapping by, or those who are on private insurance because work doesn't offer it, are going to get screwed.

I don't have an answer, though.

See, that's the thing. There is no right or good answer. There is only a half ass fix just like the 3/4 of the problems in this country


I guess I soothe myself in thinking I am at the very least helping someone somewhere....

[MrsDL]

Aug 2, 2012 6:25:52 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Aug 2, 2012 5:08:23 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

nitaw: my preimum increased several hundred this year. HUNDRED. Its not a 10 or 15 increase. 10 or 15 a year is normal. several hundred is not. My employer pays 85% of mine, but 0% of H's and DD's. So we really felt the increase.

The tax savings don't make up the difference (although I pay my for meds out of a medical fund that I save to so either way its pre tax)

I thought Nitaw was talking about a $10 or $15 increase per paycheck deduction, not per year - which would put you in the same ballpark.

Actually, I'm sure she must be, because I doubt she would even notice a $10 increase for the whole year, split over 26 or 52 pay periods. My insurance increases have always been at least $10 a paycheck, and that's $520 a year, so that increase sounds about what we always get hit with.

I'm looking at our open enrollment docs now. To keep the plan we have now (family plan which is $192.84 per pay - bi-weekly), it would cost us $387.00 bi-weekly. So pretty much double. The deductible is $900, out of pox max 2k in-network (Cigna), 4k out-of-network. Out of network counts towards the deductible. Drug co-pay was and would be $7 generic, $25 Cigna preferred, $50 non-preferred. We can't afford it.

We are going with an HRA in-network plan. Bi-weekly cost is $210 - so a little more. The deductible is 3K, but his employer pays the first $1500. Nothing is covered until the 3K is met. Out of pocket max is 6K. Everything after 3K is covered at 100%, in-network only. Nothing out of network is covered. Drugs are the same, they don't count towards the deductible. I'm still a bit confused on how everything is supposed to be paid after 3K except drugs, but the out-of-pocket max is double at 6K - so there is a catch somewhere I'm sure.

I like HRA's - I think they encourage the consumer to be more vested in choice. They're also good for the employer since, on average, something like 70% or more of employees never even use enough care to meet their deductible, so it saves money because it costs the employer less even when they pay for half of the deductible up front.

However, I like my plan. I can't afford it so I'll switch to something where the coverage is not as good, and it will cost me more out of pocket. The premiums will cost more as well, but at least it's not double. Here are the unintended consequences are we're not even close to being all-in on this thing. The fact is, expanding coverage to the insured is important and needs to be done. But it is impossible long-term, and it's actually impossible for everyone else to remain covered, if nothing is done about healthcare costs. So bending up the cost-curve, for "free" birth control or anything else, just accelerates what was already happening. the ACA didn't do anything to make care more affordable or deal with rising costs, it basically expanded coverage and had some other nice goodies thrown in. It need to be repealed and replaced with something that does address costs or nobody will be able to afford insurrance and feed their families. Kaiser Family Health Foundation already predicts that Americans will spend HALF of their take-home pay on healthcare costs by 2018 or earlier. HALF. Can you all live with half of what you take home now? I can't, and we do pretty well.

[NitaX]

Aug 2, 2012 7:33:42 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

Mine is several hundred a month. (200 in fact). I already paid close to 1k a month. Now it is over 1k a month.

And its a private school.

What do you mean why do they pay 85%?

I can't give you a stat right now, but in my jobs, usually the insurance cost is a 70/30 or 65/35 split. I haven't seen an employer pay 85% of the insurance cost in a number of years. I'm a board member of a non-profit and we were just discussing why we still pay 85% of the insurance costs. It costs the company more to have that large of a split.

However, you work for a smaller org, so it's going to cost you more. I don't know if the split would help or not, but I from the renegotiation meetings I've attended, the company managed to change the split without seeing a sizable increase to their costs.

[Deleted]

My two former schools paid 100%, and 100% of family. But they were public schools so its different. But not having any family covered has hurt, thats for sure.

[NitaX]

Dude - 100%! I haven't seen 100% insurance coverage since ... 1998.

[kadams767]

Aug 1, 2012 20:20:16 GMT -5 y4m said:

Aug 1, 2012 19:43:49 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

Y4M, are you against all preventative services being free or just BC? Not a snark question, I swear.

I think if people want to overpay for insurance that covers preventative care, they should be able to, and if people want to pay that stuff out of pocket, that should be their prerogative. When something is free, or feels free, people consume more of it. And not necessarily in a way that leads to better health outcomes.

Not trying to be an ass, but isn't the desired outcome that people consume MORE preventative care? So that down the road, they aren't utilizing more expensive options like the ER for something that could have been detected in an annual physical, or have an illness already progressed to expanded stages and need costly, extended care?