Letter to the Editor
Los Angeles Times
202 West 1st Street
Los Angeles, California, 90012
letters@latimes.com
Dear Editor,
On October 1 2011 the California bill SB 222 was discussed. This bill would require individual insurance plans to cover maternity costs. Currently, women who are self-employed or not covered through work have few options in maternity care. This is particularly interesting because one would assume that proper maternity care would be a health priority and several women initially assume they are covered. As a California citizen, I believe that proper prenatal care, labor and delivery, and neonatal care are necessary for a more equitable and positive community. Some people see this bill as unnecessary due to the Access for Infants and Mothers program. However, several choose to pay out of pocket fees so they can keep their current doctor and others simply spend their first few months panicking and trying to find insurance that will cover them. This stress and lack of care can hinder the future health of the child and mother. Therefore, some children face health inequity before they are even born. I believe the restricting or delaying of access is intolerable and that mandating that these women receive care would decrease poor health outcomes and attempt to remedy a social disparity.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-maternity-20111001,0,1594619.story
I thought you made strong points that support the California bill SB 222. Ensuring maternity care should be a top priority for healthcare reformers since individual’s health outcome and stock heavily depends on the health status as a newborn. It is important for expectant mothers to have access to the necessary care and services to ensure a safe and healthy delivery. The cost to bring a new life into the world without health insurance lies heavily on the expectant mothers and causes unnecessary stress that could further aggravate their health during the pregnancy
ReplyDelete