Michigan takes baby steps toward birth control coverage
The Detroit News
Sunday, February 12, 2006
By Laura Berman Michigan takes baby steps toward birth control coverage
Sex and the state Legislature are on uneasy terms.
Over the past 15 years, Michigan's lawmakers have helped retool Puritanism by making "choice" a dirty word. (If only they could retool the economy as effectively.) Two powerful lobbies, the Michigan Catholic Conference and Right to Life of Michigan, and the legal muscle of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, have helped move Michigan out front in backward time travel on women's health issues, especially abortion and contraceptive information. But last week, female senators from different political persuasions -- Beverly Hammerstrom, R-Temperance, and Martha Scott, D-Highland Park -- mustered a Senate Health Policy Committee hearing to face the facts -- or at least the societal cost -- of sex. And who ought to pay for the pleasure, or the pain, of unintended pregnancy. Without any hand-wringing, health insurers will cover prescription drugs that make you happy or sleepy or nicotine-free. But if you're a woman who wants to plan a family at her own pace? Or, in many cases, whose doctor prescribes birth control pills to treat irregular periods, hormonal fluctuations, or other medical conditions? That's a slow-go, especially in Michigan. 'Equity' makes sense The issue's been smoking nationally since 1999, when Viagra went on the market and the U.S. government's health insurance policy and others picked up the tab for sexual potency pills without a peep -- even though they cost $10 a pop at the time. Now, 23 states have adopted laws similar to bills proposed by Hammerstrom and Scott that would require insurers to cover birth control prescriptions like any other prescription. The logic of "contraceptive equity" makes enough sense that the United Auto Workers won it as a benefit for its members in the last contracts. Many HMOs cover contraception as part of basic women's health needs. Other insurers, including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, will include such coverage at the behest of employers. About 50 percent opt in. The bills would help ease costs for a large bloc of voters -- women, including married women of reproductive age who pay $40 to $60 a month. But even the hearing was a triumph. After all, similar bills have died in Lansing without comment for six years. Unfair to women "It's a big step forward for us, just to have a hearing," said Scott, one of the bill's sponsors. Why did Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, choose to allow a hearing on this previously taboo topic? Patterson, who complained during Thursday's hearing that requiring such coverage would be "like having the state … paying for your pleasure," did not return my phone calls. But backers of the bills, including Planned Parenthood and MARAL Pro-Choice Michigan, have a clue. Last month, several groups filed suit with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, charging that insurers that don't cover contraceptive prescriptions are being unfair to women -- and violating the constitution to boot. If I were Patterson, I'd hold a hearing, too. You can reach Laura Berman at (248) 647-7221 or lberman@detnews.com.
| 
