The Columbia Spectator reports today that pressure from student activist groups resulted in the student health services center lowering the cost of birth control to make it more affordable. As Campus Progress has reported before, the cost of birth control has shot up in recent months due to the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. Prescriptions that used to cost $10 now cost $50 or $60 to a lot of college students and recent graduates.
At Columbia, though, the fabulous NuvaRing (a vaginal ring that contains hormones released continuously throughout the month) will drop from $40 to $20 over the summer and regular oral hormonal contraception co-payments will drop from $10 to $5 a month. Thanks to the pressure of a coalition of student groups, birth control at Columbia is once again affordable to students.
A few months ago, I remember reading that birth control prices were sky-rocketing and thinking rather casually that this was just another in a long line of problems with the American healthcare system. I admit that I have often been one to argue that politics does not directly affect me. However, both these thoughts were disproved today when I discovered that politics will eventually hit home in one way or another. Upon walking up to the CVS Pharmacy window, I discovered that my birth control pill, under AETNA Insurance, had increased from $35 dollars to $60. Thirty-five dollars was quite an exorbitant of money for a prescription to begin with, but sixty dollars a month is absolutely absurd.
Granted, there are cheaper options that I can get my doctor to prescribe for me in the future, at least I hope. However, as there is no direct generic version of the drug I am on, I was forced to pay the $60 at this time and switching drugs will be a difficult task. What’s worse is that the insurance company gave me no advanced warning of this change in prices, but simply left me to discover thus on my own.
I had often wondered in the past why there are still so many unwanted pregnancies when a large array of birth control is readily available. However, if things continue at this rate, birth control pills will start to become a privilege of the upper and middle classes, not affordable to those who arguably need it most. I do not claim to know who is to blame for this change with certainty, though the easy target is the insurance companies themselves. Then again, recent initiatives like the 2005 Medicaid Bill that was just implemented in January decreased rebates pharmaceutical companies received for selling birth control to campuses at large discounts (this still wouldn’t help me though, as Georgetown will not fill birth control based on its Catholic morals.) In any case, measures such as these indicate that at least part of the problem is political. Without naming names, it is truly unfortunate when the politics of religion inhibit women from getting the medical protection that they are entitled to.
A birth control pill for men is now a reality. You have read this right. An international consortium of physicians has revealed that the pill is a “safe, effective, and reversible” contraception for men. Gentlemen, don’t forget to take your pills once a day, or else a mishap may occur.
The preparation includes progestin, a key ingredient found in women's birth-control pills. It appears to function in an analogous fashion for men, suppressing "both rate and extent" of sperm production. Some men say they are ready for more participation. I guess using a condom is not enough and that is for the people who make the right decision to use one.
I have to be honest. I do not think I would ride this bandwagon of using this “male birth control” pill. I would be willing to take it but not enthused about it. Personally, I feel bad for women when they have to remember to take the pill everyday and if they forget, let’s not think about what could happen. If I am in a deeply committed relationship, I guess it would have to be some kind of compromise of course. I think there are enough preventive methods from contracting diseases; it is a matter of outreach and educating everyone on what measurers they can take.
Researchers in Britain discovered that women who took the birth control pill for 15 years cut their chances of getting ovarian cancer in half, according to The New York Times.
Britney Spears' younger sister Jamie Lynn Spears announced that she’s pregnant. This is a girl who’s 16, rich and famous, and is now being held up as "responsible" for taking ownership and deciding to keep her baby.
Why isn’t anyone talking about why she’s pregnant in the first place? “It was a shock for both of us, so unexpected,” Jamie Lynn told Ok! magazine. “I was in complete and total shock and so was [my boyfriend].” She can’t possibly lack knowledge or access to birth control, so why was her pregnancy a shock? If you have sex without protection, you might get pregnant. NOT SHOCKING, right? Granted, she could have had a condom break or something, but that's why Plan B is available over-the-counter.
My beef isn’t with what she—or other girls in her position—decided to do with her pregnancy. But instead of using her situation (and spotlight) to mention the preventability of teen pregnancy, Jamie Lynn holds up abstinence as a reasonable solution for other girls. “I definitely don’t think it’s [premarital sex] something you should do; it’s better to wait,” she said. “But I can’t be judgmental because it’s a position I put myself in.” Jamie Lynn casts premarital sex as the problem when unprotected sex is clearly the issue at hand—thus passing up a perfect opportunity to slip the solution into the dialogue.
A girl who’s a role model for millions of other young girls shouldn’t be heralded for failing to use contraception. Period.
And MSNBC definitely shouldn’t be running a poll on whether Jamie Lynn will be a better mother than Britney.
Lord Darzi, a leading surgeon brought into Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government, said the programme could be piloted among pharmacists or nurses. The pill is currently available only with a prescription from a doctor, although most pharmacies are able to provide the "morning-after pill" without a doctor's authorisation.
Nurses and pharmacists would provide a brief health assessment at pharmacies, eliminating the need for a separate doctor’s appointment. How great would that be? I know lots of young women who would be much more likely to get on and stay on the Pill if it didn’t require doctors and multiple errands. And while hormonal birth control bears some risks, a qualified nurse or pharmacist should be able to determine a woman’s eligibility for it.
Given the ongoing struggle to make Plan B available over-the-counter and so-called conscience clauses, it seems unlikely that such a program will debut in American any time soon.
This week, a bipartisan group of representatives introduced a bill to combat the rising costs of birth control on college campuses. When the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 was implemented this year, it removed university clinics from a list of groups eligible for discounted rates from pharmaceutical companies—monthly birth control costs spiked, going from $5 to $50 or more in many cases.
“A technical oversight prevented many lower-income women from safe and low-cost contraceptives,” noted co-sponsor Mark Kirk (R-IL). “This should not be a political debate – it should be a matter of restoring discounts to support women’s health.” It’s refreshing to see such a quick, pragmatic response to an innocuous omission.
And, even better, the bill’s sponsors are drawing a direct link between prohibitively expensive contraceptives and unintended pregnancy, getting at the meat of the issue. “Let’s be frank with the American people,” said Tim Ryan (D-OH). “If Congress does not fix this problem, the cost of contraceptives will continue to rise, unintended pregnancies – especially on college campuses – will continue to rise, and more abortions will be the result.” So not only are these representatives working to quickly fix its mistake, but they’re using it to make a larger point about the importance of access to birth control. Happy Friday!
I don't! But activist Bill Baird certainly does, since he was jailed for distributing a condom to an unmarried woman. Years later, the Boston jail he was placed in is a hotel, that, ironically as ever, has free condoms provided in each of their rooms.
Kaiser Family Foundation's Daily Women's Health Policy Report highlights a study conducted by the British Medical Journal that shows women who take oral contraceptives for less than 8 years are up to 12 percent less likely to get cancer. But taking oral contraceptives for more than 8 years can increase the risk by up to 22 percent.
There has been a lot of debate about the effect of hormonal birth control on women's overall health. Especially because when birth control was first introduced, the hormonal levels were too high and made many women sick. We've come a long way since 1960, though, and women have safely been using oral contraception for more than 40 years. In some cases, like the study above, it can actually be beneficial to women's health.
Conservative groups, however, may seize on this news to say that women shouldn't be on oral contraceptives because they're bad for them. (I can just imagine the Family Research Council email now.) Even if the use of oral contraceptives for more than 8 years increases the risk of cancer slightly, there are other things--like smoking--that drastically increases the risk of cancer by a lot more.
Via Feministing. While the main focus of the choice discussion is centered on abortions and abortion accesses (which, by the way, is abysmal), Cristina Page, author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex, has a great piece this week in the Balitmore Sun about the National Right To Life conference. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney tried to convince pro-lifers that he was their candidate, but meanwhile she noticed some subtle language that indicated that he was willing to continue Bush's work against access to contraception.
No matter that emergency contraception has the same mode of action as the birth control pill and every other hormonal method of birth control. To the anti-abortion movement, contraception is the ultimate corruptor. And so this year, the unspoken rule for candidates seeking the support of anti-abortion groups is that they must offer proof they're anti-contraception too.
Annika blogged earlier today about how even though Plan B is "available" over the counter now, it is in practicality unavailable to many women and girls under the age of 18. This is just one of the many subtle battles that choice faces under rule of conservatives.
Don’t be surprised if, when going to your student health center this year, you find yourself digging deeper and deeper into your pockets to refill your oral contraceptive prescription. As the Associated Press reports, a change in a Medicaid rebate law (amended in a defecit reduction bill) has ended the incentive for drug companies to offer discounted pills to colleges. What does this mean for the average student? A prespcription that is twice, if not thrice as expensive. The cost increase even affects generic brands.
The AP article mentions students and health workers at schools like Indiana University and Kansas State, which a number of working class students who are often supporting themselves, or even their children, while studying. According to Hugh Jessup, executive director of the health center at IU, “It’s a tremendous problem for our students because not every student has a platinum card…Some of our students have two jobs, have children. To increase this by 100 percent or more overnight, which is what happened, is a huge shock to them and to their system.”
Obviously, this does not bode well for reducing unplanned pregnancies at college campuses. Also, as oral contraceptives can be used at times as emergency contraception, the ramifications for victims of sexual assault are also serious. But, I guess it’s what I’ve come to expect from the government’s continued attacks and erosion of Medicaid…
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
