religious employers must cover birth control

[v-girl]

The employer can decide. My last full time job was with one of the largest independent ad agencies. They did not cover any well check, bc, vaccines, pap smears, etc. You had to pay those out of pocket.

[MarissaNicole]

The employer can decide. My last full time job was with one of the largest independent ad agencies. They did not cover any well check, bc, vaccines, pap smears, etc. You had to pay those out of pocket.

Doesn't that only make healthcare more expensive if they don't pay for any of that preventative stuff? That seems so wrong!

[SoonerTexan]

I don't know the answers to all of these but I will answer what I know:

So does that mean that catholic institutions pay slightly less for their employees coverage because certain things are not covered?

Not necessarily because the cost of plans vary so widely based on what is included. Organization A might not cover BC while Organization B does, but Organization A might cover things Organization B doesn't, or at a higher rate. The cost of the plan would also depend on the size of the organization and a host of other things decided when the employer negotiates a plan with an insurance company.

Also since PP helps out people without insurance, do they also help people who are insured by a catholic company?

No idea

This is where I'm going to tread very carefully. Personally, I really hope this wont turn into a debate about abortion. I cant see any good coming out of that. I'm fine with debating whether or not it will be covered/who should pay, but not the morals of it. It just seems like a very bad idea.

Since the mother's life is an exception to abortion (at least I thought it was), does that mean that the Catholic employer would cover the abortion if it is necessary to save the mother's life?

I'm not sure on this. I don't believe it is an exception, but I'm not sure what happens in cases where the death of the mother would mean the death of the baby as well. If anyone does know (Tara?) please chime in. I do know the Church teaches that the life of the mother and baby are equal and it is not morally acceptable to end one to save the other, just as it wouldn't be outside of the womb. That doesn't mean a mother couldn't undergo a procedure to save her life or treat a serious illness that could negatively affect the baby, but an outright abortion would be considered immoral.

What about if the baby wasn't going to live - would a mother have to carry it until her body decided it was time?

Again, I believe yes, but I'm not sure how this would play out medically. I have no idea how this would be covered under insurance. I have no experience with it. On the theological side, the thinking would be it is not our choice to decide a baby should die early if it was going to die anyway. And how can you always know 100% for sure.

For example if I need b/c it for other reasons although they think its okay do they then cover it, or still opt not to?

No idea, but I'm curious myself. I can see it being used as a loophole, though.

So before this most recent healthcare bill does that mean that all employers could dictate what insurance companies covered? For some reason I thought it was the insurance company that determined this based on the plan

Yes, and they still can except for what is now required under the "Preventative Services" part. The plan is negotiated between the employer and insurance company.

[scrub-jay]

The employer can decide. My last full time job was with one of the largest independent ad agencies. They did not cover any well check, bc, vaccines, pap smears, etc. You had to pay those out of pocket.

This is no longer legal under the Affordable Care Act, preventative services are covered if you have a new health insurance plan starting on or after September 23, 2010. If you were hired today, they are required to pay for preventative services including immunizations, pap smears (and the associated tests that may go to the lab), and well checks. See the following for more information: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/facts...ices-list.html

[v-girl]

This is no longer legal under the Affordable Care Act, preventative services are covered if you have a new health insurance plan starting on or after September 23, 2010. If you were hired today, they are required to pay for preventative services including immunizations, pap smears (and the associated tests that may go to the lab), and well checks. See the following for more information: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/facts...ices-list.html

The company paid the insurance premiums for employees. We had to pay for family members. I don't know if it is still that way. Despite the insurance, lack of doors, and lack of titles, people still wanted to work there. LOL

[scrub-jay]

Although it would limit a woman's options if her insurance wouldn't cover it, that's why they have free clinics right? Planned parenthood does them for people who don't have insurance don't they? Also since PP helps out people without insurance, do they also help people who are insured by a catholic company?

Planned Parenthood does insurance billing, but also works with individuals without insurance coverage. Often how much you pay depends on income (this varies on state or region) or other factors.

[MarissaNicole]

I'm honestly wondering why all the hate for Viagra? Yes, their marketing is cheesy and often in bad taste, but is erectile dysfunction not a legitimate, diagnosable medical condition? Is there some kinky benefit to taking viagra when you actually don't have ED that men are taking advantage of? I'm seriously asking because otherwise I don't understand why it is always used as an example of something that shouldn't be covered. I'm guessing there is and it is being abused? Otherwise, why is old men having sex such an awful thing? It's not like women aren't benefiting (well, at least some of the time!)

I don't have anything against viagra in itself, my issue is when insurance arbitrarily chooses to cover this and NOT a woman's birth control.... I guess I see the justification when its a Catholic employer as birth control is against their beliefs. But I was under the impression there are other companies that do it as well. My issue in that case is that it seems outrageous not to cover something a woman medically needs, or chooses to take to be responsible, yet cover a pill so a man can get his jollies on. When comparing the two it seems like denying coverage for surgery for someone's sleep condition, but approving coverage for someone's nose job. I do recognize it as a condition, but I also think that various issues women have with their cycles should also be recognized as valid diagnosable conditions as well.

[scrub-jay]

This is where I'm going to tread very carefully. Personally, I really hope this wont turn into a debate about abortion. I cant see any good coming out of that. I'm fine with debating whether or not it will be covered/who should pay, but not the morals of it. It just seems like a very bad idea.

I would like to chime in here that although Planned Parenthood is often associated with providing abortions, from a public health perspective, the organization also provides many other non-abortion related services, including: general health appointments (that will test for cholesterol, diabetes, and thyroid screenings), inexpensive (or free) pap smears, immunizations (including tetanus & flu shots), sports physicals. They also provide body-image counseling and tobacco cessation services.

[Phoebe]

I guess I see the justification when its a Catholic employer as birth control is against their beliefs. But I was under the impression there are other companies that do it as well.

My neighbor's husband works for a large international company and they don't cover birth control.

[Pollyanna]

I'm not sure on this. I don't believe it is an exception, but I'm not sure what happens in cases where the death of the mother would mean the death of the baby as well. If anyone does know (Tara?) please chime in. I do know the Church teaches that the life of the mother and baby are equal and it is not morally acceptable to end one to save the other, just as it wouldn't be outside of the womb. That doesn't mean a mother couldn't undergo a procedure to save her life or treat a serious illness that could negatively affect the baby, but an outright abortion would be considered immoral.

Here is a good link to that discussion:

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

[HouseofWool]

As far as using BC for non-fertility issues... Here's how it works when a doctor wants to prescribe something that isn't on a patient's formulary. The referral/authorization coordinator must submit a metric ream of documentation as to why it is medically necessary, including all other pharmacotherapies tried, medical interventions and estimated duration of the desired drug. This is complete with diagnostic codes.

While, it would be easy to fudge a form and say that a woman needed the pill to treat endometriosis, generally, an excerpt of the chart showing documentation of the condition be submitted along with the request.

[Deebs]

So you pay 100 percent of your insurance premium? You're on an individual plan? Then you can choose the plan you want as well as its coverage.

[Vanquisher]

Small employers get very little say in what is covered versus what isn't. I think it is immoral not to cover birth control. The catholic position on fertility treaments makes me angry and sad.

[MissCrabette]

Cassy, the hospital is indirectly paying for meds/services by paying a part or all of the insurance premiums.

While I don't agree with the Catholic Church's stance on this, it's their business what they believe in and how they choose to spend their money. I think the government should butt out of this.

And while it may inconvenience some people and force them to pay a bit more than they wanted to (*gasp* the horror for an obviously employed person, right?), most basic birth control can be obtained very cheaply at a Costco pharmacy, for example. So cheaply, in fact, that it makes no sense to even use your insurance benefits because it's cheaper to pay out of pocket. Imagine that.

[MissCrabette]

Well, try $12 for your average BC pill at Costco (the pharmacy is accessible to anyone, member or not). Now I don't know how much it would be if you require some kind of special BC pill, but $60 sounds steep to me.