Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

July-18-14

Research Analysis Finds Covering Contraception is Good for Business

In a new round-up of private sector and public sector research, Guttmacher Institute dispels the myths surrounding the cost to businesses of insurance coverage for contraception. "Providing comprehensive coverage of contraceptive methods and services is not only sound public health policy," Guttmacher states, "but also a savvy business decision."

Guttmacher counters claims that covering contraception costs corporations. The evidence strongly suggests that the cost of covering all methods of contraception is outweighed by the savings accrued from preventing unplanned pregnancies. The one-year cost of contraceptives ranges from $100 to $600, while the cost of prenatal care, delivery, and newborn care can cost $20,000 or more. Previous research by Guttmacher also found that public funding for contraceptive services in 2010 led to public savings of $10.5 billion.

Having insurance coverage for contraception also increases worker productivity and encourages better use. Women without insurance who do not like their form of contraception but are stuck with it are more likely to use it inconsistently or incorrectly. Having insurance allows them to choose the best method for them.

"Removing cost as a barrier to use can significantly improve the effectiveness of contraceptive use by allowing women to pick the method that is best suited for their particular needs and circumstances - especially when it comes to highly effective methods like the IUD and implant that have high upfront costs," Guttmacher states.

Currently, 30 million women have access to birth control without co-pays or deductibles because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, the Supreme Court ruled in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell that "closely-held" corporations could not be required to provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the corporation's sincerely held religious beliefs. A bill to reverse this decision failed in the Senate Wednesday.

Media Resources: Guttmacher Institute 7/16/14; Feminist Newswire 7/1/14, 7/17/14


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

9/12/2014 Violence Against Women Act Turns 20 - Saturday will be the 20th Anniversary of the groundbreaking federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to provide federal funding to improve local response to violence against women, including training and resources for law enforcement and judges. President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a proclamation commemorating the VAWA anniversary. . . .
 
9/12/2014 Indiana Woman Charged With Feticide For Premature Delivery - An Indiana woman has been charged with feticide after she delivered prematurely and sought hospital treatment. Purvi Patel, 33, sought help at an emergency room for vaginal bleeding where it was discovered that she had delivered prematurely at home. . . .
 
9/11/2014 Missouri Legislators Pass 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Law - Missouri legislators voted late last night to triple the state's current 24-hour waiting period to 72 hours, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Governor Jay Nixon previously vetoed the bill in July, calling it "extreme and disrespectful." Missouri's House voted 117-44 to override the veto, and then the Senate used a procedural move to stop a Democratic filibuster of the bill and vote 23-7 to complete the veto override Wednesday. "The only purpose of a 72-hour waiting period is to attempt to punish, shame, and demean women who have arrived at a personal decision that politicians happen to disagree with," said the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. . . .