Affordable Care Act’s no-cost contraception rule would be bolstered under Biden move

The proposed rule would remove an employer’s ability to object to no-cost contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act on moral grounds.

SHARE Affordable Care Act’s no-cost contraception rule would be bolstered under Biden move
Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Proposal aims to “protect and promote” access to contraception and reproductive health care services.

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the proposal aims to “protect and promote” access to contraception and reproductive health care services.

Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration has unveiled a proposal to bolster no-cost contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act, in a move to rewrite a Trump administration policy that let some employers bypass the requirement.

The proposed rule from three federal agencies would remove an employer’s ability to object to such coverage on moral grounds while still allowing religious objections.

But anyone whose coverage is provided by employers or schools with religious objections could still access contraceptive care through a willing provider.

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the proposal aims to “protect and promote” access to contraception and reproductive health care services

“If this rule is finalized, individuals who have health plans that would otherwise be subject to the ACA preventive services requirements but have not covered contraceptive services because of a moral or religious objection would now have access,” Brooks-LaSure said.

Employers still would be allowed to object to contraceptive coverage on religious grounds, but the proposed rule would eliminate moral objections.

Anyone whose employer objects on religious grounds would have an “independent pathway” to obtain care from a “willing provider of contraceptive services.” he health care provider would be paid by health plans sold on federal or state insurance exchanges created under the former President Barack Obama’s 2010 health law.

In 2018, President Donald Trump’s administration adopted a policy allowing any employer with religious objections or moral concerns to avoid the ACA’s mandate that their insurance plans provide no-cost birth control coverage. It was one of a series of moves Trump pursued to weaken the ACA after Republican attempts to repeal the law failed.

It will take several months before the proposed rules from the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury are finalized.

“We’re going to be looking at this with a close eye to make sure this is as easy as possible for consumers to know about it to make use of it,” said Mara Gandal-Powers, director of birth control access and senior counsel for the National Women’s Law Center..

The Biden administration has sought wider contraceptive coverage as conservative states move to enact tighter restrictions on abortion access after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had established the right to an abortion.

In light of the tightening state restrictions on abortion, advocates said the fight to access contraception has become the next big battleground.

“The ability to prevent pregnancy has taken on different weight in a lot of places,” Gandal-Powers said.

Read more at USA Today.

The Latest
So the Sox have that going for them, which is, you know, something.
Two bison were born Friday at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. The facility’s 30-acre pasture has long been home to the grazing mammals.
Have the years of quarterback frustration been worth this moment? We’re about to find out.
The massive pop culture convention runs through Sunday at McCormick Place.
With all the important priorities the state has to tackle, why should Springfield rush to help the billionaire McCaskey family build a football stadium? The answer: They shouldn’t. The arguments so far don’t convince us this project would truly benefit the public.