Creating Two Insurance Pools Provides One Way To Address Abortion Coverage, Newsweek Opinion Piece Says

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Article Date: 11 Dec 2009 - 5:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

"Fortunately, the point of contention" over abortion coverage in the health care reform debate "is not the thornier one of whether abortions should be legal, but rather how to accommodate both those who want to provide federal coverage and those who refuse to vote to earmark government funds to do so," Al Lewis, author and economy expert, writes in a Newsweek opinion piece. He adds that both views "can be accommodated by the simple step of establishing two insurance pools, one covering abortion and one not." According to Lewis, both pools would have the same insurance premiums, and "people would sign up for the pool of their choice, depending on whether they wanted abortion coverage or not."

According to Lewis, "[o]ne of the many frustrating things about the debate over federal insurance funds going to abortion is that the funds in question are so small: abortion spending represents less than one-tenth of 1% of total health care spending." He continues that "covering abortion does not raise overall insurance premiums -- in a sense, it pays for itself by preventing the higher medical costs involved with birth events down the line," adding, "Most health plans and self-insured employers ... cover abortions because their job is not to enforce a moral code of conduct but rather to pay claims as cost-effectively as possible."

Lewis writes, "Mathematically speaking, abortion coverage offsets about the same dollar amount of avoided birth-event claims, so covering it costs taxpayers nothing, even in federally subsidized health care." He continues, "But that doesn't by itself address" objections from antiabortion-rights advocates "that the tax dollars spent on federally subsidized health plans should not go toward abortions, period."

He explains, "In order to accommodate this demand, abortion coverage dollars themselves can be segregated into a separate pool, within the context of a 'dual pool' compromise." Lewis writes, "Even if we make some very generous projections" about who would select the pool that offers abortion coverage, "the $6 per year it would cost per person to cover abortions would likely rise to no more than $36 per year, or $3 per month." He writes, "Logistically -- since abortion lowers other health care costs associated with birth -- the pool with abortion coverage would cost $3 less per month to begin with," adding, "People choosing that pool would have to pay the same $3 separately into a segregated pool used just for abortion coverage." He writes, "Abortion coverage is therefore 'free' to subscribers, but with no federal funds involved."

According to Lewis, this solution "should satisfy most Democrats." He writes, "When it comes to abortion, there are no easy answers or perfect solutions," adding, "But this plan isn't about messy morality -- it's insurance policy." He concludes, "This framework should create a face-saving consensus for both sides, allowing Democratic unity on this aspect of health reform and increasing the likelihood of its passage" (Lewis, Newsweek, 12/9).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations