Birth Control Coverage Guaranteed for All — Despite Religious Exemptions
Source: Yahoo
The Obama administration on Friday issued a workaround to last years Hobby Lobby ruling which gave companies religious exemptions on coverage of certain forms of birth control.
A new rule issued by the Obama administrations Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Friday affirmed that, even given the religious exemptions provided by the Supreme Courts ruling in Burrell v Hobby Lobby last year, all women will still be able to get coverage for all forms of birth control through the Affordable Care Act.
The rule creates an accommodation, which permits companies to opt out of providing coverage but the insurance carrier still must provide it which ensures that women will have access to no-cost birth control, no matter where they work.
For a company to receive a religious exemption from providing coverage for the methods of birth control outlined in last years Hobby Lobby case that is, any form of birth control that prevents implantation such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the emergency morning-after pill, the new standard will be that it must be a for-profit company not publicly traded with 50 percent ownership by five or fewer individuals, with members of a nuclear family all counting as one individual. Additionally, the company must produce a formal corporate statement that expresses their religious beliefs.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-17076.pdf
White House Finds Way Around Hobby Lobby Birth Control Decision
(snip)
Under the new rule, a closely held for-profit company that objects to covering contraception in its health plan can write a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services stating its objection. HHS will then notify a third-party insurer of the company's objection, and the insurer will provide birth control coverage to the company's female employees at no additional cost to the company.
Women across the country should have access to preventive services, including contraception, HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said in a statement. At the same time, we recognize the deeply held views on these issues, and we are committed to securing womens access to important preventive services at no additional cost under the Affordable Care Act, while respecting religious beliefs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/10/white-house-birth-control_n_7771004.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/health/breaking-birth-control-coverage-guaranteed-for-123731031997.html
Administration issues final rules on coverage of certain recommended preventive services without cost sharing
Final rules secure womens access to contraceptive services while respecting religious beliefs
Today, the Administration took important steps to make sure women have access to recommended preventive services, including contraceptive services, at no additional cost as required by the Affordable Care Act. The first action announced today maintains the existing accommodation for eligible religious nonprofits, but also finalizes an alternative pathway for those organizations to provide notice of their objection to covering contraceptive services. A second action announced today provides certain closely held for-profit entities the same accommodations. Todays rules also finalize interim final rules on preventive services coverage generally, with limited changes.
Women across the country should have access to preventive services, including contraception, said Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia M. Burwell. At the same time, we recognize the deeply held views on these issues, and we are committed to securing womens access to important preventive services at no additional cost under the Affordable Care Act, while respecting religious beliefs.
Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury, finalized interim final rules that establish an alternative way for eligible organizations that have a religious objection to covering contraceptive services to seek an accommodation from contracting, providing, paying, or referring for such services. These rules allow these eligible organizations to notify HHS in writing of their religious objection to providing contraception coverage, as an alternative to filling out the form provided by the Department of Labor to provide to their issuer or third-party administrator. HHS and the Department of Labor will then notify insurers and third party administrators of the organizations objection so that enrollees in plans of such organizations receive separate payments for contraceptive services, with no additional cost to the enrollee or organization, and no involvement by the organization.
In response to the Supreme Courts decision in the Hobby Lobby case, the Departments are also issuing final rules that provide the above accommodations to closely held for-profit entities. Relying on a definition used in federal tax law, the final rules define a closely held for-profit entity as an entity that is not publicly traded and that has an ownership structure under which more than 50 percent of the organizations ownership interest is owned by five or fewer individuals, or an entity with a substantially similar ownership structure. For purposes of this definition, all of the ownership interests held by members of a family are treated as being owned by a single individual. Based on available information, the Departments believe that this definition includes all of the for-profit companies that have challenged the contraceptive-coverage requirement on religious grounds.
The rules finalize standards concerning documentation and disclosure of a closely held for-profit entitys decision not to provide coverage for contraceptive services.
Todays rules also finalize interim final rules on the coverage of preventive services generally, with limited changes. They reflect public feedback received in response to the interim final rules issued in 2010 and proposed and interim final rules issued in August 2014.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2015pres/07/20150710a.html
olddots
(10,237 posts)Businesses have gotten huge and very powerful ,this should be taken into consideration .People now outnumber jobs because of two factors ,population and robotics .
Progress can't be stopped as much as religion fights progress it can't stop it .
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I believe the Catholic Church (i.e, schools) does just that. They are the major religious organization which is opposed to contraception. I worked for a Public School District which dropped national health insurance company and self-insured. Very nosy. Your "boss" knows your medical history because they process your claims.
It would probably would work the same for any religious organization who self-insures. How will this get around that? Could be a major problem. Yes, we see your are taking contraception against our wishes whether we pay for it or not. You are FIRED for not following our teachings. Matter of what we don't know, cannot hurt us, or YOU?
Sorry, but I don't think this get around will be the solution. Maybe have the Pharmacy submit the claim under Medicare or Medicaid? Don't know.
Freddie
(9,266 posts)Most large and many medium sized employers (schools, hospitals) self-insure. There is no "insurance co." to provide the funds for this. Most use a 3rd-party administrator to process claims but I'm also concerned about the confidentiality issue here too.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)would meet this criteria:
If the company is traded on a public stock exchange, it won't qualify. If it is a government entity, it won't qualify. If it is closely held, but more disperse than 5 peeps owning 50% or more, it won't qualify.
I used to work for a self-insured school district. It wasn't "for profit," and so could not qualify for the Hobby Lobby exemption described here.
I'm not trying to say Hobby Lobby was an OK decision--it wasn't--just saying fewer people are likely to be adversely affected by the self-insured issue than you might think. Seems like the regs are trying to narrow the decision as much as they can.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 10, 2015, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)
against their religious beliefs. If they fired someone because of what that person believes is a whole different issue and also involves both sets of beliefs. I do not think they would win in the courts.
Edited to say that not all Catholic businesses demand this exemption of their workers. My daughter works for a Catholic Hospital and they do not. But the reason they do not is because there are three other hospitals in the same community and a shortage of workers. In this case they do not demand their non-Catholic workers follow their faith.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)They will know, and needing to be reimbursed themselves for it, not a non religious health insurance company. To keep it free for these women, including the confidentiality factor, the government would have to pay for it unbeknown to the religious organization; like with a Federal Program like Medicare or Medicaid, or reimbursing the pharmacy directly where they get their pills from.
Please do not think I am blasting this plan generally. I just think it will not work for self insured religious organizations like the Catholic Church.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)that. They can say we are not paying for it so we are not to blame - Obama is to blame. That might satisfy them. Hopefully.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)They could sue, and they would win.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I think this has happened in SF recently. Not just BC, but IVF, gay marriage, etc. Personally I feel don't go work there at all if you are not 100% on board with their dogma. Who would want to be subject to something like this?
Again, the Catholic Church is the largest anti-contraception religious organization there is. I just wonder how this will work out.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)catrose
(5,067 posts)The women need to be able to do an end run around their companies. There was a rule that says the company/entity needs to file a paper saying they're not going to cover contraception, but Wheaton College complained that even filing the paper was too much, because they'd still be helping women get contraception.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)The right to healthcare should trump religion imo.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)lark
(23,102 posts)Scalia must be pissed that Obama is going to win on this, no matter what idiocy he promotes from the bench. Hahahahaha.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)+1
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)so why not Obama the "First Feminist" President? He might even qualify for the "First Gay" President too. Quite a legacy!!!!
Hekate
(90,690 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)the rule for high schools.
bucolic_frolic
(43,166 posts)They could explain it to me 1000 times
I'll never understand how corporations became able to moralize to their employees
It's none of their business
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Way around? I know that at Publix supermarkets they give free antibiotics with a script. No insurance required. So who is paying them for this? Could not do the same for contraception?
christx30
(6,241 posts)see reduced prices on my wife's insulin. That costs $70+ per month, and that keeps her alive.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I don't think this is an either-or, zero-sum equation.
christx30
(6,241 posts)if I could save 25% or more on her insulin, which is more important.
Hekate
(90,690 posts)For instance, a diabetic woman who becomes pregnant is automatically a real and severe medical problem.
As was pointed out above, this is not a zero-sum game. It's very important to understand that those who paint it as such are trying to divide us one from the other, and they are trying to remove access to vital health care services to over half the population.
I hope your wife's health remains stable and that you continue to be able to access the best care for her. But ensuring access to needed medicines and services to others will not take away from her, except by the actions of politicians who want to remove access from everyone.
riversedge
(70,227 posts)asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)considering they are in NO LA at right to life convention today
Six Republican candidates touted their anti-abortion credentials on Friday at the National Right to Life Convention in New Orleans.
Hekate
(90,690 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)I_Like_Hammers
(30 posts)It's ridiculous. Ok, so God MADE sex pleasurable, but he's going to punish you for experiencing it unless you do it under very strict circumstances? How effing STUPID. This crap belongs in the Bronze Age.