Health Care

Last February, the Department of Health and Human Services released an interim final rule stating that student health plans would be treated as individual health insurance plans, meaning that they would have to cover the women’s preventive health services. Let’s translate that out of “legal-ese:” the Department will require student health insurance plans (not student health centers) to cover preventive services for women, such as contraception, screening for sexually transmitted infections, and screening for interpersonal and domestic violence, without co-pays or deductibles. Read more »

A few weeks ago we shared the very exciting news that the Obama administration had held strong and we’d secured no-cost birth control for millions of women through the Affordable Care Act. This was a huge and important step for women’s health and something the National Women’s Law Center has been working towards for over a decade.

But, unfortunately, this decision and final rule has not quieted the opposition. Instead, those opposing the rule are continuing to push back and decry this significant advancement. We’ve posted a number of responses to the negative press and quotes, and we’re continuing to fight back by working with our state partners and submitting letters to the editor to newspapers across the country. Read more »

There has been a lot of press on the recent announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that it was finalizing the rule requiring coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptives with no co-pays or deductibles, and a lot of it hasn’t been positive.  Most of the focus has been on the fact that the Administration chose not to expand the exemption for certain religious employers.

Take Michael Gerson’s and E.J. Dionne’s recent op-eds, for example. Both of them admonish President Obama for not expanding the religious exemption to entities like religiously-affiliated hospitals and universities, and Gerson says that the rule covers “abortifacients” which is just wrong. He also concludes that the decision on the final rule means that “war on religion is now formally declared.” The way these two see it, it should have been a no-brainer to expand the exemption. But wait just one minute, is this all the rule is about – religious institutions versus the Administration? Is there anything else that maybe we should be considering when analyzing this rule?

Oh right…. the tremendous health benefits of contraception. Oddly and sadly, these health benefits are blatantly ignored in all of the negative commentary (Dionne tips his hat just a bit by vaguely referring to how the rule protects “women’s rights”). So it got me thinking, maybe they just don’t understand the health benefits. Maybe I should take a moment to explain just how critical contraception is as a preventive health service. So Gerson, Dionne, and all of the others who ignore the real issue at stake, please take notes. Read more »

Opponents of the recent contraceptive coverage announcement by the Department of Health & Human Services are trying to twist this major advance on contraception into a fight about abortion. In the Washington Post, Michael Gerson states that the rule requires Catholic-affiliated organizations to provide insurance coverage for "abortifacients." CNN's Belief Blog claims the new rule "forces employers to cover contraception and abortion." While both advance several faulty arguments, it's time to put to rest the claim about abortion. The rule is directly and explicitly limited to FDA-approved contraception. Read more »

Steph already told you about some of the informational and inspiring speeches at this year’s Health Action conference sponsored by Families USA. I was thrilled to spend 3 days with so many enthusiastic and hardworking health care activists, but I was particularly happy I made it to Friday morning’s panel on health disparities. The panel was informative and engaging, but also quite alarming. It was there that I learned that the direct and indirect costs of health disparities in the U.S. come to $1.24 trillion over 3 years.

Census data shows that there are striking racial disparities in women’s access to health coverage. Hispanic women are uninsured at a rate nearly 3 times higher than white women while Black and American Indian women are uninsured at a rate nearly twice that of White women. Our women’s health report card shows more alarming disparities in women’s health status. Black women in the US are significantly more likely to die from stroke and heart disease than white women and the AIDS rate among black women is over 22 times higher than for White women. Additionally, Hispanic women suffer from diabetes and high blood pressure more often than White women. Read more »

Last week, Families USA held their annual Health Action conference. Advocates from across the country gathered in Washington DC to discuss health care issues, including how to implement the Affordable Care Act at the state level. Through the conference, advocates have the chance to learn from one another’s experiences and also to hear from leaders in Washington on the importance of their work. This is my second Health Action conference, and I must say both years I have left rejuvenated to keep fighting the good fight – ensuring all Americans have affordable and quality health care.

This year, the motivating speakers included the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Representatives Jan Schakowsky and Donna Edwards, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, and Van Jones of Rebuild the Dream. Read more »

Last May, we told you about a recently signed law that would improve women’s access to family planning services in Maryland, and now the Family Planning Works Act has gone into effect!

The Family Planning Works Act expands the Medicaid family planning service program and is expected to give 33,000 low- and moderate-income women free access to a range of services, including birth control, STI testing, and cancer screenings. Read more »

Here’s to a new year.

Arriving at the National Women’s Law Center three months ago, I never anticipated just how sustained and systemic the efforts to dismantle women’s health and reproductive rights had become.  Sure, I had paid attention to the Planned Parenthood defunding fight (which included the “trade” for a ban on DC funding of abortion services and the “this is not meant to be a factual statement” debacle) and had heard about HR 3 and the disgusting “forcible rape” debate. Indeed, it was those events that informed my decision to work on reproductive rights issues full time. But even though I was aware of what was going on, it was only when I became involved with the issues on a daily basis where I gained a whole new perspective on just how far those who oppose reproductive rights are going in order to completely unravel women’s rights. And it got me thinking, if so many bad things can happen in just my three months here, what will 2012 look like?

So in order to be prepared for this year, I decided to give a quick review of my first three months – a recap of the numerous anti-choice measures that cropped up in just the final months of 2011. Because when you lay it all out, you can’t ignore how serious these efforts really are.

In my very first week, the House of Representatives voted on HR 358, which literally would allow women to die at hospitals instead of getting the emergency care they need if it included abortion care. Seriously? Read more »

With continued high unemployment causing increased numbers of women to lose health insurance coverage, policy makers should be trying to help people afford insurance.  They should ensure that someone doesn’t have to stop medical treatment because she lost her job.  They shouldn’t make it more difficult to access health coverage – but that is just what H.R. 3630 (introduced by Rep. Dave Camp, R-MI), a bill up for a vote in the House today, does. 

Reduce Financial Protections for Low- and Moderate-Income Americans who Receive Tax Credits under the Affordable Care Act

In 2014, the Affordable Care Act will provide tax credits to help individuals and families purchase coverage through a health insurance exchange.  Advance payments of the tax credits to help pay for insurance premiums (“premium tax credits”) will be paid directly to the insurance company based on information on household size and income provided to the insurance exchange.  Credits will be available on a sliding scale to help people with household income under 400 percent of the federal poverty level (about $88,000 for a family of four in 2011).

Actual income will often be different than income projected when a family enrolls in coverage.  People get married or divorced.  People lose jobs or get new jobs.  Some people work fewer hours than they expected.  Other people get promotions or bonuses.  Sometimes an unexpected cost arises – perhaps a large medical bill – that requires a person to take a second job.  Read more »

We’ve all been there. We’ve said things that we meant at the time, only to encounter circumstances later that change our minds. If you have not had a chance to read Ms. Spike Dolomite Ward’s compelling apology to President Obama, please take a moment to hear her story: Read more »