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 director of 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

New York lawmakers have sought to weaken police discipline

In the wake of George Floyd's death under a kneeling Minneapolis police officer, some New York State lawmakers are renewing calls for legislation designed to uncover police disciplinary records. But less than a year ago, state senators in both parties voted in favor of union-backed legislation that would make it harder to fire New York police officers credibly accused of using excessive force or other offenses. Read More

Ball of Confusion: New York’s Upcoming School Budget Votes Reshaped by Cuomo Order

As if the coronavirus hadn’t done enough to disrupt education in New York, Governor Cuomo has injected even more confusion and uncertainty into the public school budgeting and board selection process across the state. Read More

New York’s job losses were among the nation’s worst during April lockdowns

All but a few states imposed business lockdowns and "stay at home" orders in April. However, New York's private-sector job losses were well beyond the national norm—indicating the Empire State's economic recovery could lag behind the rest of the country Read More

NY’s job base is wrecked

It's official: the viral lockdown has been an economic catastrophe of historic proportions for New York State. Read More

Cuomo looks outside to track virus

New York State is deploying several thousand contact tracers, workers tasked with interviewing COVID-stricken residents and notifying the people they may have infected. But Governor Andrew Cuomo is taking a notable step that will likely make the effort faster and more efficient: he’s having someone else do the hiring. Read More

Hospitalization rising in some areas

Coronavirus hospitalizations are surging in parts of upstate, including three regions that the Cuomo administration authorized to begin reopening today. Read More

Uneven ‘relief’ for NY providers

A review of federal emergency payments to New York health-care providers reveals a striking disparity: Four of Manhattan's most prosperous private hospitals collected more individually than the 11 city-owned hospitals combined. Read More

Teachers work hard to stop working

New York’s statewide teachers union is exploiting a lack of direction from Governor Andrew Cuomo to force an early end to the school year. 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.