STATE POLITICS & POLICY | South Dakota Bill Would Require Contraception Coverage; Critics Argue Mandate Will Increase Costs
[Feb. 20, 2009]

The South Dakota Legislature is considering a bill (S.B. 134) that would require coverage for contraceptives under health insurance policies that cover the cost of prescription drugs, the AP/Sioux City Journal reports. In testimony before a legislative panel on Wednesday, state Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry (D), the main sponsor of the bill, said that the measure is "a first and important step for many of us from different views to come together and start working to reduce unplanned pregnancies in South Dakota." According to Turbak Berry, the cost of insurance coverage for contraceptives adds about $1.50 per month to the cost of premiums. She added that an unintended pregnancy can cost more than $8,000. She said the bill has support from both political parties and a group of female lawmakers with diverse positions on many issues. Turbak Berry also said that 27 other states require coverage.

According to the AP/Journal, the bill would require insurers to cover contraceptive drugs and devices if they already cover prescription drugs, although employers that provide group coverage for their workers could exclude contraceptive coverage based on religious objections. The requirement would also not apply to businesses or other organizations that insure themselves rather than buying commercial insurance. Critics of the bill argue that the mandate would increase premium costs and that insurance companies already offer optional contraception coverage. Dennis Duncan, a lobbyist for Dakota Care, said the state Legislature has imposed 15 mandates on insurance over the years, which have raised premiums. He added that Dakota Care already includes contraceptive coverage in all its group plans that cover prescription drugs and that people who purchase individual plans can exclude contraceptives. Darla Pollman Rogers, a representative for America's Health Insurance Plans and Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Dakota, said, "If we keep attaching mandates to insurance coverage, the prices are going to soar." In addition, Linda Schauer of Concerned Women for America said contraception is a choice and not a medical necessity, adding, "Pro-choice people have confused choice with demand."

Mitch Richter, a lobbyist for the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, said that the number of insurance companies operating in the state -- which currently stands at 18 -- has not changed much since the Legislature began enacting coverage mandates. Therefore, it is unlikely that requiring contraception coverage will drive companies out of the state, he said. Mandy Hagseth of the South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women said that 98% of women use contraceptives at some point in their lives and that the lifetime cost of contraceptives stands at about $11,000. She added that insurance companies should have to cover the cost of contraceptives to ensure fair treatment for women. According to the AP/Journal, the committee delayed a vote on the bill until at least Friday because of possible rewrites (AP/Sioux City Journal, 2/18).





The information contained in this publication reflects media coverage of women’s health issues and does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

News Room  |  Research Library  |  Ways to Give  |  Jobs  |  Privacy  |  Site Search  |  Contact Us  |  RSS  |  Home © 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families