Content deleted Content added
Instaurare (talk | contribs) Undid revision 437583150 by 216.193.204.28 (talk) unconstructive |
→Opposition: edited to include Planned Parenthood condemnation of bill. |
||
Line 13:
According to the [[Guttmacher Institute]], 13% of all abortions in 2001 were directly billed to private insurance companies. Some in the debate used this statistic to argue that, because relatively few women seem to use private insurance coverage to pay for abortion services, absence of coverage would have minimal impact. The Institute responded that arguments based on the statistic alone misrepresented the situation, since it omits women who pay for the procedure out of pocket and later seek reimbursement from their insurance company and those who have coverage but chose not to use it because they don’t want their employer, insurer or primary policyholder (spouse, parent) to know that they obtained an abortion.<ref>[http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/11/11/index.html "Misuse of Guttmacher Statistic on Insurance Coverage of Abortion"], Guttmacher Institute Media Center, November 11, 2009</ref>
Planned Parenthood condemned the measure, stating in part, "“Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today. Simply put, the Stupak/Pitts amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money."
An analysis published by policy researchers at the [[George Washington University Medical School]] Department of Health Policy concluded the Stupak–Pitts Amendment would have the effect of eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions for all women, not just those receiving subsidies or participating in the exchange. The analysis also said the Amendment's restrictions would hinder the insurance industry's ability to market supplemental coverage for abortions, and impact the current ability of individual states to provide such supplemental coverage to [[Medicaid]] recipients. Another issue raised was the possibility of private insurance companies denying coverage for other procedures if a relationship between those procedures and an abortion exists, especially in cases where an abortion is the result of other serious health conditions.<ref>Rosenbaum, Sara, et al., [http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/healthpolicy/dhp_publications/pub_uploads/dhpPublication_FED314C4-5056-9D20-3DBE77EF6ABF0FED.pdf "An Analysis of the Implications of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment for Coverage of Medically Indicated Abortions"], The George Washington University Medical Center, School of Public Health & Health Services, Washington, D.C., November 16, 2009</ref>
| |||