Thursday, June 14, 2001 | 10:55 a.m.
THE LAW of unintended consequences finally produced a good result.
OK, if you refuse to read about contraceptives, birth control and the rights of women to be close to or, dare I say it, equal to those of men, now's your chance to go on to something else in the paper because I am going to write about all of the above.
I remembered, vaguely, that the case was going on but that didn't lessen my surprise to read about a federal judge's decision in a Seattle case. The judge found that a drug store chain's insurance plan violated sex-discrimination provisions of a number of federal laws, inlcuding the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
After all, who could believe in this day and age that insurance companies and the employers which hired them could decide that women were less equal to men when it came to the kind and quality of prescription drugs that were covered under their medical plans. Actually, that is a characterization that is too simple and, therefore, not telling of what I believe the real beef was all about. In a word, you guessed it, the fight was about life. Or pro-life, to be exact.
Now I am in trouble. So I'll try to explain, which should make matters that much worse.
U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik ruled that Bartell Drugs, the nation's oldest continuously owned drug store chain, had violated some very big federal laws because it had a prescription drug plan that excluded prescription contraceptives. He wrote, "Although the plan covers almost all drugs and devices used by men, the exclusion of prescription contraceptives creates a gaping hole in the coverage offered to female employees, leaving a fundamental and immediate health care need uncovered."
That's the law subject, of course, to the Supreme Court finding a reason to suggest that women employees are inferior to men when it comes to their prescription drug opportunities. Assuming, however, that Judge Lasnik's reasoning withstands the onslaught of reproductive politics at the High Court, the questions remains: How did it happen to work out this way?
Why do over 90 percent of health insurance plans cover most prescription drugs when only about 35 to 50 percent of them cover contraceptives? I don't know the answer but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that just the word -- contraceptive -- conjures up something politically unpalatable in most corporate board rooms.
Not any more. Within moments after the judge made his ruling Jean Bartell Barber, the drug store chain's chief financial officer, said "it was never our intention to discriminate and we had planned to offer contraceptive coverage well before this judgment." Good for her. I suspect that most companies will soon opt for the extra $21.40 per employee per year for the extended coverage. That's $1.78 per month to do the right thing.
What was curious to me, however, was the concern expressed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Randel Johnson, the vice president for labor and employee benefits, said, "It's another government mandate." That's code, by the way, for anything the business community doesn't want to do. It makes it sound so sinister, doesn't it?
Whenever I hear that the chamber is concerned, it gets me thinking. Chambers of commerce at the national level or the local level usually are guided by one principle, and that is principal -- as in money. Given the truth of that statement, I am confused about their position on this case.
Rather than worry about the extra $21 per year that prescription contraceptive coverage would cost the nation's employers, the chamber should be pushing as hard as it can for all women of child-bearing age to be on birth control pills. Just think of all the time off for child birth classes, morning sickness, childbirth itself and, then, caring for the wee ones who would be avoided if women of child-bearing age didn't. Think of all the money the chamber's members would make!
OK, OK. I'm just kidding. Besides, even the chamber types know that if we skipped a generation of child bearing there would be no one around to buy all this stuff we make in 20 years. So that brings us back to the reason for discriminating against women.
I still don't have the answer, although I'll bet my reason is a lot closer to the truth than anyone wants to admit in the enlightened age of the 21st century. This time, it is not just about money.
archive
