Judge: Contraceptives in Health Plan -- <font size = "4">The Drunks Bar </font size "4">

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:28:39 06/12/01 Tue
Author: Peach
Subject: Judge: Contraceptives in Health Plan

SEATTLE (AP) � In a widely watched lawsuit, a drugstore chain was ordered Tuesday to include
contraceptives for women in its employee health insurance plan.

U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik ruled in favor of pharmacist Jennifer Erickson in her suit against
Bartell Drug Co. in a case that marks the first federal challenge to employers who don't cover birth
control.

``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,'' Lasnik wrote.

Erickson, 27, who works for for the Bartell chain, contended that the policy violated the federal
Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

``I am extremely pleased and I want to encourage all employers and insurance companies across
America to cover contraceptives in their plans,'' Erickson said after the decision was announced

Erickson's lead attorney, Roberta Riley, told Lasnik at a hearing last month that the company's policy
singled out women and put them at a disadvantage.

But Bartell lawyer James Dickens claimed that interpretation of the pregnancy law is wrong.
Thousands of pages of the Congressional Record show no mention of birth control, he said.

``The state of not being pregnant was not covered by that law,'' he said. Besides, Dickens said, Bartell's
plans exclude a broad range of family planning services.

Bartell added birth control to its health insurance for union-covered employees on April 1 and now
will ``take prompt action'' to add the benefit for nonunion employees, such as Erickson, said Jean
Bartell Barber, the company's chief financial officer.

``It was never our intention to discriminate and we had planned to offer contraceptive coverage well
before this judgment,'' she said.

Nationally, women's groups have been trying for years to force employers to cover contraceptives in
health insurance.

The debate became particularly charged after the introduction of Viagra, the male impotence pill,
which some insurers cover.

In December, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission declared that two employers violated
the pregnancy discrimination law by failing to cover contraceptives � but including other preventive
treatments � in health insurance plans.

The EEOC said the 1978 law protects women against discrimination because they have the ability to
become pregnant, not just during times when they are pregnant.

Congress in 1998 required that health plans for federal employees cover prescription contraceptives.

Erickson has said she became frustrated when she had to constantly tell customers that they would
have to pay for their birth control pills � because many other health plans, like her company's, don't
cover contraceptives � though many do cover abortions and vasectomies.

Bartell, founded in 1890, had 48 stores in the Seattle area as of last year and is the oldest
family-owned drugstore chain in the nation.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

I guess since the insurance companies have been known to cover the cost of Viagra.... -- Dr. Ruth, 20:44:29 06/12/01 Tue
- Re: I guess since the insurance companies have been known to cover the cost of Viagra.... -- Peach, 17:05:08 06/13/01 Wed