Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Readers Respond

The cost of free contraceptives

Over the last few days, it has been interesting and almost comical to watch President Barack Obama handle the growing opposition regarding the decision of his administration to mandate coverage of contraceptives in the national health care reform benefit package.

The president has "compromised" by saying that these insurance plans will no longer be required to cover contraceptives. However, the insurance companies will be required to provide these products to the benefit plan members at no charge (including co-pays or co-insurance).

Does President Obama really believe that insurance company shareholders will give up their dividends to provide these benefits at "no cost"? Or that the manufacturers will begin providing these products to the insurance companies, and thus to their members, at no cost? Of course not.

The insurance companies will project their costs for these products, and they will increase the underlying insurance premiums to cover them. The employees (and their covered dependents) who are covered on the benefit plans will have access to free contraceptives, and the employers will be paying the cost of the products through their increased health insurance premiums, religious objections or not.

As a matter of fact, the insurance carrier actuaries will confirm that because the president is eliminating the option for insurance companies to charge co-pays or co-insurance, the actual usage and overall costs of these products will increase.

Regardless of what your personal opinion is on this particular issue, it's important for us to be open about what the ultimate costs of these benefits are going to be and who is going to pay for them.

Al Redmer Jr., Middle River

The writer is a former Maryland Insurance Commissioner.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Why is Mikulski trying to 'fix' the Supreme Court's decision? [Letter]
    Why is Mikulski trying to 'fix' the Supreme Court's decision? [Letter]

    On her website, Sen. Barbara Mikulski proclaims that she is joining other senators to introduce a "legislative fix to protect women's health" following the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case. Whether you are for abortion or against abortion, whether you think your...

  • Pushy pro-lifers [Letter]
    Pushy pro-lifers [Letter]

    Letter writer Mary Catalfamo claims that Planned Parenthood denies any pregnant women immediate, free access to the full spectrum of information and counseling ("Supreme Court decisions won't limit women's rights," July 9).

  • An effort to shame, cloaked in the guise of women's empowerment [Letter]
    An effort to shame, cloaked in the guise of women's empowerment [Letter]

    Regarding the recent rant by small business woman and political activist Michelle Jefferson ("Stop griping and get a grip, ladies," July 11), it seems that she missed the most basic and fundamental message of the women's movement in the last century: don't leave your sisters behind.

  • Global needs: food and birth control [Letter]
    Global needs: food and birth control [Letter]

    While writer Mike Gesker ("U.S. food aid still critical abroad," July 10) rightly affirms our commitment to sending food to poor countries, as a member of Catholic Relief Services he fails though to address the other side of this economic problem.

  • Misreporting the Hobby Lobby decision [Letter]
    Misreporting the Hobby Lobby decision [Letter]

    The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case was confined specifically to exempting some employers from having to pay for medications or procedures that terminate a pregnancy after conception ("Court sides with employers in contraception case," June 30).

  • Hobby Lobby decision a case for Supreme Court term limits [Letter]
    Hobby Lobby decision a case for Supreme Court term limits [Letter]

    The inane Hobby Lobby decision clearly shows it is time to set term limits for the judges of the Supreme Court ("Corporations vs. people," June 30). It is time to get rid of Justice Antonin Scalia — the smuggest among the high court's nine, and Clarence Thomas — the dumbest,...