Return To Full Article
You can republish this story for free. Click the "Copy HTML" button below. Questions? Get more details.

Women Shouldn鈥檛 Get A Bill For An IUD 鈥 But Sometimes They Do

After a few months on daily contraceptive pills, Erica M. wanted something more reliable. She wanted an intrauterine device, a form of long-acting reversible contraception that doctors call one of the most effective forms of birth control. (Erica鈥檚 last name has been withheld due to privacy concerns.)

It shouldn鈥檛 have been a problem. Erica, 23 at the time, had insurance through work. Under the Affordable Care Act, most health plans must cover all methods of birth control without any cost sharing. In fact, the birth control pills she was using were fully covered 鈥 she paid nothing out-of-pocket.

But a few weeks after her June 2018 appointment, she found herself on the receiving end of an IUD bill for about $1,900. On her $9-an-hour income, that expense simply wasn鈥檛 feasible.

鈥淚 never got any indication that it wouldn鈥檛 be covered,鈥 she said. 鈥淚 found out after the fact, obviously too late to do anything about it.鈥

Stories like hers are difficult to track. There is little research on how often women see surprise bills for IUDs, though an analysis of private insurance claims data suggests it鈥檚 not common. For those who are slapped with a fee, though, the prices are sky-high 鈥 and growing.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has issued rules to chip away at this contraceptive mandate, by expanding the cases in which employers can opt out of providing this coverage. Those efforts have been blocked by lower courts, and the Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in. If the administration succeeds, reproductive health experts say, that move will likely exacerbate the financial issues women like her face.

Theoretically, private health plans cover birth control with no out-of-pocket costs to patients. But there are exceptions, which are particularly relevant to the who get insurance through an employer.

  • If your plan was 鈥済randfathered鈥 鈥 meaning it was in place before the ACA took effect in 2010 and hasn鈥檛 changed since 鈥 it isn鈥檛 required to cover contraception. In 2019, of people getting insurance through work had a grandfathered plan.
  • Insurers aren鈥檛 required to cover every contraceptive product on the market. But they do have to account for one version of each birth control method, and cannot favor one method over others. (That means there has to be a hormonal IUD and a copper IUD available without cost sharing.)
  • If your employer is religious 鈥 such as a church 鈥 it is not required to provide contraceptive coverage.
  • If you work at a religiously affiliated institution, such as a university or hospital, your employer may not be required to buy contraceptive coverage, but the insurance company still has to pay for it. (This is the so-called )

For almost everyone else who gets coverage through work or purchases an ACA-compliant plan, the policy should apply. However, there isn鈥檛 a clear or strong mechanism to make sure health plans that are required to cover birth control do so.

It is clear that, by and large, women now spend on birth control than they did before the mandate. And the number of women opting for IUDs has gone up since the mandate took effect, though the number was already trending upward.

Still, the most , conducted in 2014, found that insurance was inconsistent in guaranteeing full coverage of birth control options generally, and of IUDs specifically.

鈥淭his is an ongoing issue,鈥 said Marian Jarlenski, an assistant professor of health policy at the University of Pittsburgh, who researches maternal and child health.

And the limited research means 鈥渘o one knows how much of a problem this is,鈥 said Dr. Nora Becker, a clinical fellow at Boston鈥檚 Brigham and Women鈥檚 Hospital, who has studied the contraceptive mandate鈥檚 impact.

In all likelihood, most women probably won鈥檛 get a bill for IUD insertion or a birth control prescription. Data compiled by the Health Care Cost Institute, an independent research group funded by insurers, suggested that in 2017 fewer than 5% of women had an out-of-pocket bill for the insertion.

Nevertheless, 鈥渢here are definitely women out there who are still being billed inappropriately,鈥 Becker said.

Erica worked at the time at a small religious college in Kentucky. So while the employer wasn鈥檛 required to cover birth control, her health plan still had to. She spent seven months going back and forth with her doctor, employer and insurance company before finally getting her plan to pay.

鈥淚t felt like a full-time job,鈥 she recalled.

Patients often don鈥檛 have the time or resources to take on that kind of task.

鈥淵ou may be hit by a surprise bill; you may just decide to pay out-of-pocket, not knowing there might be an appeals process; or you could go to a different clinic,鈥 Jarlenski said.

And in those cases, the price is getting steeper.

The HCCI data didn鈥檛 indicate what patients with out-of-pocket costs ultimately paid. But it did showcase a sharp increase in what private insurance plans negotiated and then paid for IUDs over the past decade. Like much else in health care, there was wide variation in what different plans ended up paying.

From 2008 to 2017, the average payout for a Paragard copper IUD jumped from $420 to $818. In 2017, the top 90th percentile of private plans paid about $980 for the copper IUD; the bottom 10th paid $710.

鈥淭hat鈥檚 a substantial difference,鈥 said John Hargraves, a senior researcher at HCCI.

The impact may not be widely felt now, but reproductive health experts suggested it鈥檚 an issue that could grow more prevalent as the Trump administration pursues a federal rule change that would give more employers the ability to opt out of guaranteeing contraceptive coverage. Under the Trump proposal, religiously affiliated employers like Erica鈥檚 could drop coverage altogether, and the health plan she had wouldn鈥檛 still have to pay for contraception.

The change hasn鈥檛 taken effect 鈥 a federal appeals court issued a nationwide injunction last year, blocking the rule. This month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. This decision marks the third time the high court has agreed to examine the contraceptive mandate, but the first case in which the deciding body will include the members nominated by President Donald Trump, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

麻豆女优 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 麻豆女优鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

Help 麻豆女优 Health News track this article

By including these elements when you republish, you help us:
  • Understand which communities and people we鈥檙e reaching.
  • Measure the impact of our health journalism.
  • Continue providing free, high-quality health news to the public.
Canonical Tag

Include this in your page's <head> section to properly attribute this content.

Tracking Snippet

Add this snippet at the end of your republished article to help us track its reach.