Until today, I have had a difficult time making up my mind about the contraceptive controversy. On the one hand, it is simply having insurance pay for what a very large percentage of sexually active Catholics already practice. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is not a democracy. A few old men run the organization. Is the official religion represented by their pronouncements, or by the actual practices of the Church members? In a democracy, do we craft policy that protects the freedoms of church members, or of its leaders? I am not sure how to resolve that, but I dont think it matters. The Church will not be paying for contraceptives.
John Goodman provides a link to a study which looks at the costs of providing contraceptives. It turns out that insurance companies, and businesses save money when contraceptives are offered.
Unintended pregnancies result in substantial excess direct medical claims costs17 and indirect costs such as disability, employee replacement costs, lost productivity, and presenteeism.14
Providing coverage for contraceptive counseling and contraceptive medications and devices improves access and use, thereby avoiding the substantial direct and indirect costs associated with unintended pregnancies, abortions, and unwanted births. The average cost of a 1-year supply of prescription birth control pills is $240 to $300 (in year 2005 dollars) and the cost of a single prescription of emergency contraception is $20 to $150. These costs are lower than the “treatment” costs for an unintended pregnancy.7 For example, the average cost to employers of:
• A first term abortion is approximately $468 (in year 2003 dollars).7
• A normal vaginal delivery (without complications) is $7,340 (in year 2005 dollars).7• A cesarean delivery (without complications) is $12,257 (in year 2005 dollars).7
• The delivery and first year care of a premature infant is $41,610 (in year 2001 dollars).18
Comprehensive contraceptive coverage is relatively inexpensive. The average total cost (including administrative costs) of adding coverage for all reversible methods of contraception is $25.31 per employee, per year.7 The added cost to employers of providing contraception coverage (assuming 20% employee cost sharing) is $1.69 per employee, per month (all figures from 1998, adjusted to year 2005 dollars using the NASA Inflation Calculator).7
In 2004, the private-sector cost of preventive medicine evaluation and management averaged $107 per session; approximately 95% of paid claims fell within the range of $45 to $165 per session.19
Treatment costs of an unintended pregnancy include the cost of termination ($428)7 or the cost of prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care and the ongoing cost of care for the infant. The cost of labor and delivery alone ranges from $7,3406 to $41,610 (figures in year 2003, 2005, 2001 dollars, respectively).18 The cost of prenatal care and ongoing infant/child care varies substantially, but it can be assumed to be significant if the child remains a beneficiary until 18 to 25 years of age.Researchers estimate that over a 5-year period, employers can save $9,000 to $14,000 (in year 1993 dollars) by providing comprehensive contraceptive coverage.8 Experts suggest that employers may begin to see some savings in the first year of coverage.8
The Church, or observant Catholics will not be required to pay for contraceptives. They will be required to pay less in insurance premiums because their insurance will carry contraceptives. I can see how they might find this offensive, but I dont think the Church has a constitutional right to not be offended because they are paying less for insurance. We have already done the same thing for abortion. Insurance carriers are not allowed to reduce their rates when they carry coverage for abortion. It is unclear to me why (I understand the politics) a religious group can mandate a decreased salary on my part.**
I do think there is a way out of this. We know that employers compensate employees based upon their total compensation package. Those health care benefits are part of what an employer pays to maintain an employee. Every employee of the Catholic Church, or an observant Catholic, will therefore see less take home pay if contraceptives are not offered. The Church, or the observant Catholic employer, should make up the difference in take home pay if they choose to not have contraceptives included on their insurance plan. The employee will not suffer from having someone else’s religious beliefs resulting in their decreased income. The Church/employer will not have to offer contraceptives in their insurance offering.
** As an employer, I would note that delivery and child care costs make a large contribution to our insurance costs.
Plus, what about the religious freedom of the employee? What if it is part of the employee’s religion to use birth control? It’s one thing to not work at a small church, but if we’re talking about a really large employer like a hospital then it seems unreasonable to expect people not to work there.
We have the right to free speech. Is our employer supposed to provide the conduit for it? (Employers can actually restrict our free speech. Try going on TV, radio or what have you and denigrate your employer and see what happens. Make sure they know.
We have the right to bear arms. Is our employer supposed to buy us guns? Etc, etc.
You’re logic couldn’t weaker. There are plenty of places to find a job if you don’t like it. I make a conscious decision to work at places where I don’t have significant ideological differences. I’m not so immature as to expect everyone to conform to my expectations.
The Church, or observant Catholics will not be required to pay for contraceptives. They will be required to pay less in insurance premiums because their insurance will carry contraceptives. I can see how they might find this offensive, but I dont think the Church has a constitutional right to not be offended because they are paying less for insurance. We have already done the same thing for abortion. Insurance carriers are not allowed to reduce their rates when they carry coverage for abortion. It is unclear to me why (I understand the politics) a religious group can mandate a decreased salary on my part.**
My good Steve,
This whole paragraph is such a tangle of problems, at least as posed, that I will leave it to you to determine whether updating it may be indicated for greater clarity.
First, insurance premiums fund whatever the insurer uses its money for, from covering contraceptives in Vladivostok to investing in oil futures to rescuing puppies in Cleveland as a tax writeoff.
Second, are you claiming that a reduced cost to insurers to provide contraceptives will automatically lower premiums? Why? Has some long dormant natural law, like gravity, suddenly become active, forcing them to? Is that function – lower contraceptive costs means insurers must lower premiums – written into the ACA as health care law? Because in my experience price is a market function only partially related to costs, and a profit-driven insurer without extraordinary competition would easily use a changing market situation, particularly one with lower costs not easily audited, as cover to instead raise premiums marginally, increasing the spread in both directions.
In fact, this latter aspect – change is always opportunity – demonstrates the very likely primary beneficiaries of the contraceptive situation: the pharmaceutical industry with a now more widely mandated product and the insurers with a now more widely mandated population to factor into their costs.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
“Second, are you claiming that a reduced cost to insurers to provide contraceptives will automatically lower premiums? Why?”
Good point. As we know, markets are not always good at pricing stuff. There is not always a good relationship between the costs of the producer and the cost to the consumer. However, this is pretty well publicized. Insurance companies are very sensitive to publicity. My guess is that they either reduce premiums, or leave them the same. If they leave them the same, there would be no reason for the CHurch to pay employees or have to pay anything. (If they were to raise premiums, they would risk losing free money.) They would suffer no real harm. (This should be pretty easily audited and it has been studied before.)
Steve
Steve, I know you are not stupid, and if providing free contraceptives was good for business, insurance companies would have done this long time ago. And if they are not doing it voluntarily – then it means they know that the study you quote is full of crap. And mind you, they bet their own money, unlike Obama.
I dont think the Church has a constitutional right to not be offended because they are paying less for insurance.
It’s not about being offended. It’s about freedom of religion and following long established dogma of the faith. Assisting in artificial birth control (i.e. methods other than abstinence or the rhythm method) or abortion violate the laws of the Church. It appears there are a lot of people who don’t know what it means to believe in something strongly enough that you actually stand up for it.
They are not being asked to pay for contraceptives. The insurance companies really can, assuming this research is correct, provide contraceptives for free. Less than free. The church is actively trying to force people to act according to its beliefs. This is not a case of the church being forced to do anything.
Steve
Planned Parenthood provides contraceptives for free already. Just walk in.
My point is that it’s not a matter of being offended. All this would be moot if Obama and the left would let us lead our lives with a minimal amount of interference rather than trying to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. As a responsible person, I’ve never had a problem providing insurance or health care for myself and my family.
So your definition of a responsible person includes roughly $1000 extra income per month to cover health insurance, over and above all the other costs of living? Congrats.
Sister, if he is not paying for his own health care – then who is? Santa Claus?
“The insurance companies really can, assuming this research is correct, provide contraceptives for free. Less than free.”
And if the study is wrong (and it’s obvious that it is wrong), then Obama is violating people’s freedom, right?
For those interested, an insurance guy goes through the costs of acquiring insurance fro maternity coverage (not required for individual coverage or small businesses). He comes up with needing about $12,000 for good coverage fro 21 months, the minimum amount of time one typically needs to be covered for the insurance to pay. At $300/year for 30 years, it would cost $9,000.
Steve
http://yourhealthplanadvisor.com/maternity.html
[...] The Contraceptive Fallacy (aleksandreia.com) [...]
“John Goodman provides a link to a study which looks at the costs of providing contraceptives. It turns out that insurance companies, and businesses save money when contraceptives are offered.”
If this were true, then Obama would not have forced all employers to pay for contraceptives – instead he would have relied on the authors of this study to convince the insurance companies.