In yet another backward step for reproductive rights of women, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 decision, reversed a lower court decision in favor of the female employees of Union Pacific Railroad, who had successfully sued their employer in 2005 for refusing to cover prescription contraceptives in their employee health plan.
The court argued that, since the plan did not cover contraception for men or women, it did not discriminate against women.
Union Pacific’s health plans do not cover any contraception used by women such as birth control, sponges, diaphragms, intrauterine devices or tubal ligations or any contraception used by men such as condoms and vasectomies. Therefore, the coverage provided to women is not less favorable than that provided to men. Thus, there is no violation of Title VII.
The judges sidestepped the one of the major arguments in support of the plaintiffs – That since UP covered Viagra and drugs for male baldness, it should cover contraception. Here’s the opinion again:
We decline to address whether pregnancy is a “disease.” Instead, we simply hold that the district court erred in using the comparator “medicines or medical services [that] prevent employees from developing diseases or conditions that pose an equal or lesser threat to employees’ health than does pregnancy.”
Believe it or not, Union Pacific was named by Working Mother Magazine as one of it’s 100 best companies to work for in 2006. How that happened, I’ll never know….
So baldness is a disease, maybe in females, but in males?
jmb
I am not all that upset by this decision, I have to say. I don’t think that lifestyle drugs should be supported by insurance at all for either men or women. I agree that it’s OK to not cover contraception for women as long as they don’t cover viagra and vasectomies for men. I don’t think that we should be paying for other people’s sex lives…
I also don’t think that most cosmetic surgery should be covered either. My sister had breast augmentation and was outraged that she had to pay out of pocket. I thought she was crazy to even have the surgery, but I was shocked that she thought it would be covered! She had to pay, but now gravity no longer applies to her chest. Worth it, don’t ya think?
By the way, why does this company cover baldness medication at all? They should not. I am a bald guy, and if I wanted to try and grow some hair back (hopefully not back hair) with medication, I know it would be out of my own pocket. Instead, I cut my own hair (what is left of it) and save a fortune in haircuts. Being bald rules.
Schtruggling:
UP does cover viagra for men. Therin lies the contradiction. Erectiule dysfunction has no health implications, pregnancy does.
Oh, I understood the fact they they covered viagra. I just don’t think that they ought to.
However, the argument that Viagra treats a medical condition as opposed to contraceptives that prevent a medical condition is one that clearly the courts agree with. Again, I don’t agree. I don’t think that my contributions to an insurance policy should help to fund anyone else’s sex life. It’s a personal choice to have sex and to chose to prevent pregnancy. Just because you need to see a doctor to get the script, should not equal coverage.
What is so foolish about the whole thing is that if they did a simple cost/benefit analysis, my guess it would show hands down savings if unwanted pregnancies (or abortions) are avoided.
Let me put myself out there one more step. I don’t think that insurance should be in place for the everyday office visits either. It should be there for procedures, special tests, hospital stays, surgeries, etc, but the visit to the doc because you have a sore throat should be on your own dime.
I wonder what the numbers would look like if this were the case, or if the numbers would be substantially similar due to tort law being more a factor with the kind of care that would require insurance? Would be very interesting to see the numbers…I would be happy to pay my way should my monthly rate for insurance decline!!
Shruggling, aren’t you contradicting yourself? On the one hand you say you don’t want to pay for other people’s sex lives, on the other hand you agree that subsidizing contraception is likely to be cost-saving. You are talking about cost to you, and yet you don’t want to pay for contraception even if it is likely to save you money? Wouldn’t you want your plan to make cost-saving choices?
Also, what about non-contraceptive uses of birth control pills? Young women with POF are sometimes prescribed BCP as hormone replacement – it’s not my place to discuss the reasons why some doctors prefer it. I don’t know enough, but aren’t there other uses for contraceptive pills as well? By refusing to cover BCP, doesn’t the plan interfere with doctor’s choice of prescribing whatever the doctor feels appropriate for a specific condition?
By the way, I doubt that office visits is that much of a cost factor, and that not covering them is likely to save you money. From what I heard tests and other things you want to cover are actually a much bigger cost factor. But this is beside the point.
Diora: I know schtruggling, and he likes to talk all sides of an issue, which is why I love him so.. (and why he SHOULD START A BLOG ALREADY…)
Union pacific does cover birth control pills when used to treate gynecologic conditions, but not for pure contraceptive indictations.
I can frequently get OCP covered for patients depite these kinds of idiotic rules, because there are just so many other things pills are prescribed for – painful periods (we call it dysmenorrhea), acne, recurrent ovarian cysts, endometriosis, acne, hirsutism, prevention of ovarian cancer in women with a family history, treatment of irregular periods and PCOS, need I go on? For many women I can find a valid indication to prescribe them so that they are covered. But that requires a letter, and paperwork, and time, adding one more expense to the already out of control healthcare costs.