Breaking News

Birth control prices could decrease

Right now, NuvaRing costs $54, a price uninsured students are often unable to pay. Cathy Thrasher, Watkins Memorial Health Center pharmacist, remembers when students could buy the alternative form of contraception for less than $20 without insurance. With President Barack Obama’s approval of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill on March 11, drug manufacturers can restore discounted contraception prices.

The Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 cut clinic packaging of contraception beginning in 2006. But with the assistance of the new law signed by Obama last month, health clinics that cater to universities may see the return of discounted contraceptives.

The new law has health providers like Thrasher scrambling to restore affordable contraceptive options. Thrasher said manufacturers offered clinic packages, different from retail packages, so women could sample different birth control options for a reduced price.

Brands like NuvaRing and Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo were no longer offered at discounted prices to uninsured students after the Federal Deficit Reduction Act.

Thrasher said Watkins administrators were drafting a letter to send to manufacturers and hoped that students would help create awareness about the importance of restoring affordable contraception. She said a student petition might help push the cause.

Elise Higgins, who is the president of the Commission on the Status of Women, said the price of her birth control changed after the Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

“It’s so important that women who can’t afford health insurance have affordable contraception,” said Higgins, Topeka junior.

Higgins bought her birth control from Planned Parenthood and went from paying $10 a month to $18 a month after the Federal Deficit Reduction Act was passed.

Higgins was prescribed four different kinds of birth control after the act was passed because Planned Parenthood couldn’t maintain its discounted supplies. After the price of her birth control increased by $8, she realized she could use her parents’ insurance at Watkins to purchase it for less.

Watkins pharmacy didn’t see the effects of the Federal Deficit Reduction Act until 2007 when the pharmacy started to run low on its birth control stock. Thrasher said that brand-name birth control used to cost students $8 to $11 a month, but that prices had significantly increased.

Higgins said that Watkins provided affordable birth control options for students by offering generic brands, but that urging manufacturers to offer discounted prices would help a lot of uninsured women.

Patricia Denning, senior staff physician at Watkins, said birth control manufacturers would have to feel pressure from consumers before they took the necessary steps to reinstate more affordable birth control.

“The crux of it is that it doesn’t obligate the manufacturer to offer the discount,” Denning said. The Omnibus Appropriations bill only removed the barrier to reinstate contracts with university health clinics.

Students interested in building a campaign to restore affordable contraception should contact Mai Do at Watkins Memorial Health Center at (785) 864-0388.

— — Edited by Liz Schubauer

Comments

pantheon (anonymous) says...

True story: Birth control is often more expensive at Watkins than county health. And remember girls, make him wrap it before he taps it.

April 20, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

Not to be a wet blanket, but I don't see how $18 a month is too high of a price for birth control for students. I could be reading this wrong and perhaps the average price is higher, but $18/mo. is the highest given. If it were something like $100/mo., I could certainly see the reasoning in subsidization.

How much money do we spend on recreational activities every month? Per week even? Is it society's responsibility to subsidize something an individual could afford if she could simply reprioritize her spending?

Let's also not forget to mention that when we ask the government to subsidize something, we cannot simultaneously ask the company to decrease prices...This is kind of a mixed signal.

April 20, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

You are reading it wrong. Depending on what sort of medication doesn't make you lady-crazy (I know, redundant) or sick or whatever, you might be paying $50/mo. And this is a health thing. If you're ready to get fired up about "society's responsibility to subsidize something an individual could afford if she could simply reprioritize her spending" I can only imagine how you're gonna love welfare families. And if you get rid of welfare, I'm sure you'll kvetch about the crime rate. And if they put everybody in prison, you'll whine about how we have to pay to house these people who aren't even people.
Long story short, this is saving you money. You can thank the government later.

April 20, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

I have recently been corrected by Elise and told that the Deficit Reduction Act did not increase prices on birth control through ending subsidies. Instead, it created a loophole that did not allow pharmaceutical companies to sell their wares to non-profit organizations for reduced prices. Given this new information, I retract my previous comments about subsidies and instead say "Good job fixing that, federal government."

April 20, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

And pantheon: no. Bad line of reasoning.

April 20, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

And pantheon: no. Bad line of reasoning.

April 20, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

What else are we going to do with these extra babies, eat them?

You're a sick man, Mike.
I like it.

April 20, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

You're a sick man, knowing my name and all.

April 21, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )