Women Are Spending $1.4 Billion Less On Birth Control Due To Obamacare: Report

[Cali_Democrat]

Source: Huffington Post

Spending on birth control has significantly decreased since the Affordable Care Act's mandate for insurance companies to cover contraception went into effect in August of 2012, according to a new report.

An analysis published Tuesday in Health Affairs shows that women have saved $1.4 billion on birth control pills, while out-of-pocket spending on intrauterine devices has fallen 68 percent. Annual, out-of-pocket savings were $248 for IUDs and $255 annually for oral contraceptives.

The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover all birth control methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration without any form of cost-sharing, like copayments or deductibles.

The Health Affairs report found that in the six months leading up to the birth control mandate, pill users spent an average of $32.74 per prescription, with that number falling to $20.37. Average spending on IUDs fell from $262.38 to $84.30.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/07/obamacare-birth-control-_n_7747332.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[Lars39]

1. That's money going back into the economy most likely.

[Igel]

5. Where else would it have gone?

"Give me proof that you burned your money and I'll give you the contraception"?

Women can spend it; insurance companies, collecting money from those insured (who may--or may not--be paying more), can spend it. The companies selling them collect the money, and they don't hide it or burn it. They pay workers, they pay dividends, they buy materials or equipment, or they put it in banks. If they take in less because of negotiated savings, they spend less.

Whether it's good for the economy as a whole depends on how much is spent on what, not who spends it, and on the velocity of money. "Velocity of money" is a great concept; the actual numerical value ranges widely by who's determining it, and it's likely different in different parts of the country and even different economic groups. It also depends on who's receiving the dividends--somebody with lots of excess liquidity, or a pension fund who uses the money for retirees. We hear about the "top 1%" and what they own compared to the bottom 99%, but first we remove things like pension fund holdings from the mix.


The point isn't that the money was somehow removed from the economy and is now going back in; the point is that a specific subsection of the population has lower expenses, therefore more money.

[jtuck004]

14. Not really. It is still being spent, just spread across a lot more people.

While individual women are out of pocket less, the costs are still being paid - did you see the posting about ins cos asking for 20% and higher increases to cover their costs? This is why.

From the report: "That said, insurance plans can theoretically recoup the costs from having to cover birth control 100 percent by increasing the monthly premiums they charge customers."

They have nearly all increased them by the 10% they are allowed without asking, and most are asking for 2 to 3 times that. And they will likely get very close to it.

The companies who sell this stuff have not lowered their price - it is being paid by others. Any cost savings, and this was written into the bill and scored by the CBO - any savings will come from reduced births as a result of contraception.

[Sunlei]

16. now thats it's federal money paying The drug companies will probably raise prices for a 1000% profit

Drug Corps collude, conspire with Insurance Corps to price gouge consumers.

[Roy Rolling]

2. And the result?

I would bet the abortion numbers have decreased, too, now that women have more access to healthcare.

Ironic because the morons most vocal against abortion are the loudest critics against Obamacare which reduced abortions as they asked.

Thanks Obama.

[restorefreedom]

7. exactly.

better contraception, better healthcare means fewer unplanned pregnancies, fewer abortions, better health for women.

would love to see the abortion # from a non rw source.

[Hekate]

11. Check out Colorado. Their teen pregnancy and abortion rates dropped some 40%...

....with free contraception for young women.

[restorefreedom]

13. that's the way to get it done

except for those living in the bizarro world

[timdog44]

17. And more money

In the economy, not just from reduced costs. Less children means people of little means now have the means. And the meanies can go fuck them selves.

[frazzled]

3. So important

And a much overlooked economic and social benefit of the ACA. Indeed, so many of the provisions in the ACA are not only about better health, but are bringing about huge social and economic impacts, especially for poorer, minority, and underserved constituencies.

Hurrah.

[bigwillq]

4. Cool.

[SunSeeker]

6. K & R

[IronLionZion]

8. See! Obama is taking money away from hard working job creators!

[Lars39]

15. ^This^ You got it!

[marble falls]

9. For the price of a bomber. Win/win.

[senz]

10. This is good news, but it would be even more interesting and meaningful if they could get figures on

whether contraceptive usage has gone up. I would imagine it has, but the statistics would be nice.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. This is a good thing. Thanks, Obama. n/t

[Dont call me Shirley]

18. And Big Pharma is pissed!

[Cha]

19. Good for Women having birth control covered with Obamacare.. Mahlo Cali