years ago i was talking to an administrator of a health plan about that december 2000 EEOC rule. the administrator told me that he thought the insurers that wanted to exclude birth control coverage were crazy. covering birth control costs very little but in the long run has all kinds of savings on things that costs the plan real money in the long run, like maternity coverage and extension of coverage to dependents (the plan, like many health plans, charged one premium for "single coverage" and other for "family coverage" but that family coverage premium was the same no matter how many dependents were on the policy).
religious issues aside, it really is in the insurance company's economic interest to include coverage for birth control. that's why so many plans have done it voluntarily up until now. which is why putting the onus on insurance companies might actually work. (not that it will get the anti-birth control crowd to back off on the issue. i'm just saying that the health insurance industry isn't likely to fight this kind of compromise)
religious issues aside, it really is in the insurance company's economic interest to include coverage for birth control. that's why so many plans have done it voluntarily up until now. which is why putting the onus on insurance companies might actually work. (not that it will get the anti-birth control crowd to back off on the issue. i'm just saying that the health insurance industry isn't likely to fight this kind of compromise)
