Editorial: Birth control coverage prompts a controversy

Wednesday, Feb. 17, 1999 | 12:01 p.m.

The Nevada Democrat and Maine Republican noted that when Viagra was introduced there was a controversy on whether insurance companies would cover the male impotency drug, but for years there was virtually no debate on whether health plans should pay for the costs of prescription contraceptives for women. A survey by the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization, found that half of the health plans don't cover any method of contraception.

Now the Nevada Legislature is considering legislation by Assemblywoman Chris Guinchigliani, D-Las Vegas, and Sen. Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, that would require insurance plans to cover the costs of prescription contraceptives. Reid's wife, Landra, even testified Monday in Carson City on how important it is for women to have access to contraceptives. Of the 3.6 million pregnancies every year, 60 percent are not planned. And of the unplanned pregnancies, 44 percent end in abortion, according to Landra Reid.

Health insurance companies have a point when they note that when government imposes a new mandate, there can be a corresponding increase in health care costs. But sometimes these mandates that require payment for preventive measures, such as mammograms, end up saving lives or reducing costs that otherwise would have to be picked up later. In addition, gender equity also necessitates coverage for contraception. As long as the costs tied to this proposed mandate are reasonable, the Legislature should require that insurance companies pay for contraceptive prescriptions.