MAY 31, 13:13 EDT Women's Groups Demand Pill Equality
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Insurance companies' willingness
to pay for the male impotence pill Viagra has angry
women's groups pressing Congress to require coverage
of prescription female contraceptives as well.
They insist it's unfair that insurers help men have more
and better sex, while many of the same companies
won't help women avoid unwanted pregnancies that
might result. Insurers respond that coverage is
available for birth control, but it's unpopular with
employers.
''Viagra, in all seriousness, means more sex. And
more sex means more need for effective
contraception,'' complained Gloria Feldt, president of
the Planned Parenthood Federation.
A 1994 report by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which
studies reproductive health, found that 97 percent of
large group health insurance plans pay for prescription
drugs, but only a third covered birth control pills.
The Pill won government approval almost 40 years ago.
The Food and Drug Administration approved Viagra in
March. The private consulting group IMS says almost
half the 300,000 men taking Viagra weekly already are
reimbursed, at least in part, by their health insurers.
Up to 73 percent of patients using rival impotence
treatments also are reimbursed, said IMS, which tracks
drug statistics.
''It's absurd that women must face this choice,'' Ms.
Feldt said.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Rep. Jim
Greenwood, R-Pa., introduced a bill last year to require
health insurers that pay for prescription drugs to cover
prescription contraceptives, devices and services.
Similar legislation takes effect in Maryland in October,
and a few other states also require some insurance
coverage of birth control.
Opponents of the Snowe-Greenwood bill contend
artificial contraceptives are optional, but impotence is
not.
And the bill's chances of passage appear slim.
Women's groups exercise little power in the
Republican-controlled Congress, while powerful
business and religious interests oppose the legislation.
Business groups oppose on the ground that such a law
would increase health care costs.
''Anything that adds cost to health coverage we
oppose, because it winds up, in its incremental effect,
pricing people out of coverage,'' said Neil Trautwein,
health care policy manager for the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
Richard Coorsh, spokesman for the Health Insurance
Association of America, said most insurers offer plans
that cover contraception, but employers who pay for
health care choose not to buy them. His industry also
opposes Snowe's bill and mandated benefits in general
because it fears higher costs for everyone.
''It's a mandate for contraceptive services, which are
elective services,'' said Cathy Deeds, a public policy
analyst for the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops, which opposes the bill and the use of artificial
contraceptives.
At the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, however, the position is that
contraception is a must for women of child-bearing age.
In pushing for congressional action, the organization
cited a 1994 study by the Women's Research and
Education Institute that found that women spend 68
percent more for health care than men, largely because
of reproductive care.
As a result, women who can't afford $30 for a month's
supply of birth control pills often turn to cheaper, less
reliable forms of contraception and risk unwanted
pregnancies, women's advocates say. Almost half the
estimated 3.6 million unplanned pregnancies in the
United States each year end in abortion, the
Guttmacher Institute said.
''To ignore the health benefits of contraception is to
say that the alternative of 12 to 15 pregnancies during
a woman's lifetime is medically acceptable,'' said Luella
Klein, director of women's health issues for the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Coverage also makes financial sense, the groups say. A
year's supply of birth control pills costs much less than
the tab for nine months of maternity care and
eventually delivery.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a Senate sponsor, said lack of
interest in the issue ''shows to me what happens
when you have a male-dominated legislature. If this
were a problem that affected men, this thing would
have passed decades ago.''
Aware of the long odds against his ''Pill Bill,''
Greenwood said House sponsors would try to require
federal employee health plans to pay for prescription
contraceptives. The Republican-controlled Congress, he
noted, has prohibited the plans from paying for
abortions.
''If we're going to tell a woman you can't get an
abortion,'' he said, ''then for God's sake let's help
them prevent unwanted pregnancies.'' |
