contraceptive-pills-849413__340-300x173-2113624In addition to being one of the wedge issues that paralyzed the state Senate this week, the Comprehensive Contraceptive Coverage Act is also an insurance mandate. And like the dozens of other mandates pending in Albany, it’s being debated without a clear analysis of costs and benefits.

Contrary to what its name suggests, the bill is not about ensuring coverage of birth control pills, IUDs and other contraceptive drugs and devices. That coverage is already mandated, without cost-sharing, by existing laws and regulations at both the federal and state level.

The bill’s practical effects would be incremental, including eliminating cost-sharing for sterilization procedures such as vasectomy and tubal ligation, and allowing patients to receive 12 months’ worth of contraceptives with an initial prescription.

The legislation was originally proposed in January 2017 by then-Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who resigned last month after several women accused him of assaulting them.

Back then, President Trump was about to take office and congressional Republicans were vowing to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which included birth control as one of the preventive services that all health plans must cover without cost-sharing (meaning copayments, coinsurance and deductibles). New York law also requires coverage for birth control, but did not prohibit cost-sharing.

Since then, however, the GOP’s attempts to repeal and replace the ACA have repeatedly failed—and its provisions relating to birth control remain in largely in force. The Trump administration broadened exemptions for certain employers with religious or moral objections to contraception, but those are overridden in New York by state law.

Last year, the Cuomo administration issued regulations barring cost-sharing for contraceptives and requiring plans to provide at least a three-month supply on the initial prescription, and a 12-month supply on subsequent refills.

With the original legislation rendered largely redundant, its main function now is as a political symbol—with supporters portraying it as a boost for reproductive rights and women’s rights generally.

This week, Democrats tried to attach the Comprehensive Contraceptive Coverage Act as a hostile amendment to unrelated legislation in the state Senate, as a way of forcing Republicans to cast politically awkward votes. Democrats did the same with the Reproductive Health Act, which would restate and broaden the legalization of abortion in state law.

Lacking votes to block the maneuver, Senate Republicans responded by abruptly adjourning—and the house was unable to pass any bills for the rest of the week.

With respect to the Comprehensive Contraception Coverage Act, the political squabbling has overshadowed substantive flaws—which should concern even those who wholeheartedly support birth control.

Take, for instance, the focus on eliminating cost-sharing. The issue is largely moot for now, since that policy is already established by federal law and state regulation. But even if those laws and regulations went away, it’s not clear that the state should be wiping out cost-sharing for all contraception users at all income levels, including wealthy people who could easily afford a copayment of $30 or $50 a month. One side effect of that unnecessary benefit is marginally higher premiums for everyone, including lower-income insurance customers who don’t need or use contraceptives at all.

Nor is there an obvious reason why contraceptives should be provided a year’s worth at a time, when life-saving medications such as insulin are not. Twelve-month prescriptions would be wasteful if, for example, a patient decides to go off birth control or change contraceptive methods a few weeks later after filling one.

The bill also sets the precedent of prohibiting cost-sharing for sterilization, which is an elective surgical procedure as opposed to a drug or device. Why shouldn’t it get the same treatment as removal of a cancerous tumor or repair of a cleft palate?

How much higher this particular bill would push premiums is unknown. The Legislature never formally analyzes the cost impact of insurance mandates, despite voting 11 years ago to do just that.

But if these provisions become law, other patient and provider groups would undoubtedly seek similar enhanced coverage for drugs, devices and procedures important to them. And New York’s health insurance premiums, already among the highest in the country, would grow costlier still.

About the Author

Bill Hammond

As the Empire Center’s senior fellow for health policy, Bill Hammond tracks fast-moving developments in New York’s massive health care industry, with a focus on how decisions made in Albany and Washington affect the well-being of patients, providers, taxpayers and the state’s economy.

Read more by Bill Hammond

You may also like

Cuomo Administration Ducks Important Questions on Nursing Homes

A new report from the state Health Department tries to deflect blame for thousands of coronavirus deaths in the state's nursing homes—but undermines its own case by withholding data and engaging in tendentious analysis. Read More

New Data Confirm New York State’s Q1 Economic Plunge

New York's economy ended the first quarter of this year in virtual free fall, the latest federal data show. The Empire State's real gross domestic product (GDP) decreased 8.2 percent in the first three months of 2020 compared to the fourth quarter of 2 Read More

Nursing Home Vacancy Rate Soars, Hinting at a Higher Coronavirus Toll

The vacancy rate in New York's nursing homes has more than doubled since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, suggesting that the death toll among residents may be thousands higher than officially reported. Read More

Cuomo Extends Slushy “Freeze” of State Worker Pay

A temporary freeze on scheduled pay hikes for state government employees (apparently) will continue through September while Governor Cuomo continues to count on aid from Washington to cope with the pandemic-induced economic and fiscal crisis. But the gove Read More

Federal Judges Have (Again) Upheld Public Worker Pay Freezes to Deal with Fiscal Crises

A federal appellate court has upheld a state-imposed freeze on pay increases for Nassau County employees—reaffirming the Legislature’s power to to every level of government in New Read More

New York’s Personal Income Pulse Weakened in First Quarter of 2020

Personal income growth in New York nearly flatlined in the first quarter of this year, reflecting the start of the economic shutdown triggered by the coronavirus crisis, according to by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Revised BEA data a Read More

Private Jobs Recovery was Glacial in NY as Reopening Began in May

Unlike its , New York's economic recovery began at a painfully slow rate during the normally buoyant month of May. the viral lockdown ordered by Governor Cuomo resulted in an economic catastrophe of historic proportions for the Empire State, culminati Read More

Unsure of COVID Impact, NY Insurers Roll Dice on Rate Hikes

The health insurance industry's rate applications for 2021, , reveal deep uncertainty about the long-term impact of the coronavirus pandemic on medical costs. Some companies anticip Read More

Subscribe

Sign up to receive updates about Empire Center research, news and events in your email.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Empire Center for Public Policy
30 South Pearl St.
Suite 1210
Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-434-3100
Fax: 518-434-3130
E-Mail: info@empirecenter.org

About

The Empire Center is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank located in Albany, New York. Our mission is to make New York a better place to live and work by promoting public policy reforms grounded in free-market principles, personal responsibility, and the ideals of effective and accountable government.