Discussion for article #227567
Repubs want it to be OTC so insurance doesn’t have to pay for it. Very transparent. They “appear” to be pro-birth control, but would actually make birth control less available, as the cost, for some, might be prohibitive. When, to be fair, will they demand that Viagra be OTC and not covered by insurance?
5 Likes
I’m all for some birth control being made available OTC just as long as insurance companies will still have to cover it without a copay and as long as it’s available to minors as well. While I may not want very young teens and tweens to be engaged in sexual activity, I would much prefer that they’re protected if they do choose to do so.
5 Likes
And as an extra added plus, if enough women use birth control pills OTC and experience blood clots due to no medical advice, that provides a handy excuse for an outright ban.
2 Likes
Yes but what do you want to bet the next step is on the local level to have pharmacists claim the privilege of barring “minors” (defined by them of course) from buying it without a parent’s consent. Or dispensing to single women. Or dispensing it altogether, the same as they protested dispensing so-called abortion pills (which weren’t).
Plus my insurance flat out will not reimburse any OTC drugs.
4 Likes
If ever there was a place where it is appropriate to start out with, “now I’m not a scientist…” it would be whenever a politician attempts to dictate health policy.
Funny how they’re unable to comment on climate change but are able to know how to provide contraception.
7 Likes
“….eliminating the prescription requirement for certain contraceptive over-the-counter products, and increasing access of over-the-counter contraception to minors….”
OK, I’m confused. (As usual.)
How could there be a “prescription requirement” for “over-the-counter products”? (I thought OTC meant non-prescription.)
Also, is minor access to “over-the-counter contraception” now limited? (In my day, any high-school student could purchase a wide variety of OTC contraception without ID.)
Serious questions.
1 Like
TeaXian PreciousPro-Lifers would rather
Protect the fetus
Abuse the child.
2 Likes
Your school was probably old fashioned enough to have decent sex ed.
Abstinence only training is no where near as effective in this regard.
1 Like
Isn’t that exactly what’s already happening with pharmacists claiming various religious exemptions? At least with BC being OTC, women wouldn’t have to deal with the pharmacist. They could just take it right up to the cashier.
Yep, that’s why I specifically said that I would only support BC being OTC if insurance companies were forced to pay for it without a copay. Isn’t that something the president could do via EO?
3 Likes
The plan mainly just appeals to Job Creators’™ talk-radio, paranoid resentment that some unworthy taker might be enjoying herself on their dime. It has little to do with concern for patients or any sort of religious principle.
1 Like
Next I’m sure they’ll come out against rape as well. They seem to be tripping all over themselves to appeal to women, but most women aren’t looking for a return to the 13th century, which is where most of their policy proposals take us.
In my lifetime condoms were literally an under-the-counter item.
One asked for them by brand and the clerk would grab a pkg from under the counter.
Evidently the same nuttiness behind the condom sales is driving this concern over OTC birth control pills.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Gotta wonder just what constituency these pols are trying to appease.
2 Likes
I think what Pyanfar is saying is that some birth control is OTC but Pharmacists, based on claims of “moral or religious objection” will put it behind the counter and insist that minors (or whoever) have to go out of their way to request it personally from them, even if it is without a prescription. Its been known to happen…even with condoms in some very conservative owned pharmacies. So rather than being able to pick it off the shelf and head up to the cashier without a Pharmacist involved, akin to grabbing Tylenol, this could create an added burden on anyone seeking the pills.
I agree though, insurance wouldn’t cover it this way, which according to the ACA has birth control a comprehensive part of women’s reproductive healthcare. Making the pill OTC only benefits someone who has no health insurance for whatever reason, or someone able to afford it without needing to get comprehensive healthcare directly from a doctor.
Right now you can get spermicides, sponges, and condoms OTC. But you can’t get a diaphragm (those still need to be fitted), or IUDs, or birth control implants, patches, or b.c. shots over the counter. So not all forms of birth control would ever be available in this manner, even as these Republicans are attempting to deflect this issue. Its fairly obvious that “the pill” is just the newest way they’re trying to take the focus off their anti-women policies in general.
Many women choose or require different forms of contraception and making the pill available OTC is only one way to do it, but certainly not the only way. It should definitely remain part of comprehensive care through insurance coverage.
Exactly, that’s what I meant and didn’t really express well. There will be pharmacists who will then make it difficult to get the OTC versions without a wedding ring.
I’d love to see insurance companies have to revisit coverage of certain kinds of now OTC medications, because so much has been pushed to OTC and without insurance companies complaining about the cost, consumers pay through the nose. Allergy and gastric treatments come to mind.
1 Like