+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Implications of employer coverage of contraception: Cost-effectiveness analysis of contraception coverage under an employer mandate



Implications of employer coverage of contraception: Cost-effectiveness analysis of contraception coverage under an employer mandate



Contraception 95(1): 77-89



Mandatory employer-based insurance coverage of contraception in the US has been a controversial component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Prior research has examined the cost-effectiveness of contraception in general; however, no studies have developed a formal decision model in the context of the new ACA provisions. As such, this study aims to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of insurance coverage of contraception under employer-sponsored insurance coverage taking into consideration newer regulations allowing for religious exemptions. A decision model was developed from the employer perspective to simulate pregnancy costs and outcomes associated with insurance coverage. Method-specific estimates of contraception failure rates, outcomes and costs were derived from the literature. Uptake by marital status and age was drawn from a nationally representative database. Providing no contraception coverage resulted in 33 more unintended pregnancies per 1000 women (95% confidence range: 22.4; 44.0). This subsequently significantly increased the number of unintended births and terminations. Total costs were higher among uninsured women owing to higher costs of pregnancy outcomes. The effect of no insurance was greatest on unmarried women 20-29 years old. Denying female employees' full coverage of contraceptives increases total costs from the employer perspective, as well as the total number of terminations. Insurance coverage was found to be significantly associated with women's choice of contraceptive method in a large nationally representative sample. Using a decision model to extrapolate to pregnancy outcomes, we found a large and statistically significant difference in unintended pregnancy and terminations. Denying women contraception coverage may have significant consequences for pregnancy outcomes.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058069191

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27542519

DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.08.002


Related references

Implications Of Employer Coverage Of Contraception: Cost-Effectiveness Of Contraception Under An Employer Mandate. Value in Health 18(3): A106-A107, 2015

Affordable Care Act's Mandate Eliminating Contraceptive Cost Sharing Influenced Choices Of Women With Employer Coverage. Health Affairs 35(9): 1608-1615, 2016

Is employer coverage of elective egg freezing coercive?: a survey of medical students' knowledge, intentions, and attitudes towards elective egg freezing and employer coverage. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 34(8): 1035-1041, 2017

Bills would repeal employer mandate, expand low-income coverage in Wash. Modern Healthcare 25(18): 18, 1995

Universal coverage, guaranteed. My idea: an employer mandate and a new insurance plan that pays for itself. Modern Healthcare 37(47): 14, 2007

An employer's opinion ... important issues need to be addressed before tax credits replace employer coverage. Healthplan 40(2): 38-40, 1999

Low-Income workers with employer-sponsored insurance: who's at risk when employer coverage is no longer an option?. Medical Care Research and Review 61(4): 474-494, 2004

San Francisco's 'pay or play' employer mandate expanded private coverage by local firms and a public care program. Health Affairs 32(1): 69-77, 2013

California may become first state to mandate insurance coverage for contraception. State Reproductive Health Monitor 6(3): 1-3, 1995

Trends in the cost of employer-sponsored coverage. Data Bulletin 1998(14): 1-2, 1998

Universal coverage, guaranteed. My plan: an employer mandate and a new insurance plan that pays for itself. Modern Healthcare 37(40): 24, 2007

State trends in the cost of employer health insurance coverage, 2003-2013. Issue Brief 1: 1-22, 2015

National trends in the cost of employer health insurance coverage, 2003-2013. Issue Brief 32: 1-9, 2015

Paying more and losing ground: how employer cost-shifting is eroding health coverage of working families. International Journal of Health Services 29(3): 485-518, 1999

Coverage decisions versus the quality of care: an analysis of recent ERISA judicial decisions and their implications for employer-insured individuals. Issue Brief: 1-15, 2002