I always thought that the purpose of insurance is to allow risk-averse people to replace the possibility of a large but uncertain loss with the certainty of a small and manageable loss.

As 98 percent of women use contraceptives, expenditure on them hardly seems like an unpredictable event. So the saved cost of contraceptives covered by insurance is exactly offset by the increase in insurance premia necessary to pay for them.

So why does anyone have an opinion either way? Because employer-financed insurance rates for men and women are the same, creating an implicit subsidy from men to women for contraceptives. I am all in favor of this. But can we at least have a debate about what the issue really is?

Is it a real subsidy, though?

Both sexes benefit when unwanted pregnancies are prevented.

As 98 percent of women use contraceptives, expenditure on them hardly seems like an unpredictable event.

Do you have any stats to back that up? Because the last three girls I dated were not using the Pill, and I have many female friends who don't care for it for various reasons. Now everybody I know uses rubbers, but that's the man's responsibility, not necessarily the woman's.

The initial article links to the Planned Parenthood site and I believe that stat is actually "98% of women use contraceptives at some point in their lives..." and I would guess that the last three girls you had dated had used the pill at some point even though they didn't use it when they were dating you.

yo, contraceptives include "rubbers," amigo. contraceptives are anything that can prevent pregnancy. even pulling out is a method of pregnancy prevention. a woman doesn't have to be on the pill, ring or shot to be using BC.

Good point.

I think it is a real subsidy in the sense that without insurance coverage women would pay more for contraceptives and men less.

Even though men also benefit from avoiding unwanted pregnancy, the degree varies with the nature of the relationship. If in general they gain less than women, then they will choose not to contribute, knowing that women will bear the full cost. This free riding problem creates a market failure (and questions of equity) that is handily solved under the current insurance rules.

Would the man actually end up paying less? In most states, an unmarried man who gets his girlfriend pregnant can have his paycheck garnished to the tune of half her medical expenses and the costs of raising the child.

I think that insurance companies generally want to provide coverage for BCPs (and vasectomies and tubal ligation) because it reduces their childbirth expenses in the end. You can buy a lot of BCPs for the cost of just one normal birth.

I wonder why they don't cover most other methods as well? It seems like preventing STDs *and* pregnancy would be even more cost-effective than just preventing the pregnancy, especially since condoms are relatively cheap.