Legislators Renew Bid to Require Coverage of Contraceptives

Accusing medical plans of discriminating against women, state legislators on Tuesday for the fifth time in as many years gave initial approval to a bill requiring insurers to cover contraceptives.

This year, the idea--which previously cleared the Legislature only to face repeated vetoes by then-Gov. Pete Wilson--has a stronger chance of becoming law. During his gubernatorial campaign, Gov. Gray Davis said he favored mandating insurance coverage of birth control.

The first of two similar bills, which cleared the Assembly Health Committee on a 10-4 vote Tuesday, was given the number 39--as in AB 39--to commemorate the number of years since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved birth control pills.

“For 39 years there has been an injustice,” said Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks), whose introduction of the bill marks his third attempt at changing state law.

Hertzberg’s bill would require prescription contraceptives to be covered by all health maintenance organizations that cover other prescription drugs. A companion Senate bill, SB 41, that has not yet come up for committee vote would extend that requirement to all other health insurers.

The Senate bill’s author, Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Daly City), who as an assemblywoman in 1995 and 1996 had handled similar birth control bills, said the issue is a matter of equity for women.

Contraceptives, she told the committee, are the only category of drugs excluded by some medical insurance plans.

“This drug was discovered 39 years ago and we’re still fighting to include it in prescription drug benefits,” she said. “Viagra was discovered six months ago and guess what? It’s already there.”

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, birth control pill coverage is offered by 71% of HMOs but just 36% of fee-for-service plans. The organization, which is co-sponsoring the bills along with Planned Parenthood, suggests that lack of coverage is a major reason women’s out of pocket health costs are two-thirds higher than men’s.

Debate about the Assembly bill was heated Tuesday, resurrecting the two main employer-centered opposition arguments of the past: The cost of expanding drug coverage would unfairly fall to employers, and the bill would put employers who oppose birth control for religious reasons into a difficult bind.

Hertzberg said recent tallies suggest that the average cost of contraceptive coverage is about $16 a year.

However, Poway Assemblywoman Charlene Zettel, the only Republican to vote for the Assembly bill, said that as a small-business owner she was more concerned about the cost of an employee’s unplanned pregnancy.

“It might be penny-wise and a pound-foolish if we don’t support this prevention,” she said.

Representatives of the Catholic Church pushed for exempting bona fide religious organizations that oppose birth control.

“This society should respect our different religious beliefs,” said Edward Dolejski, executive director of the California Catholic Conference.

Hertzberg and Speier said they were willing to consider such a change as long as employees can obtain the coverage elsewhere.