http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-maternity-20111001,0,1594619.story
Re ”Individual insurance may have to cover maternity care,” Oct. 1
Pregnant women without access to prenatal care is not a problem we can afford to brush off. In 2008, 21% of pregnant women in California did not receive adequate prenatal care. Babies are three times more likely to have low birth weights and five times more likely to die if their mother did not receive prenatal care, reported the HHS Office on Women’s Health. Critics of bills SB 222 and SB 299 argue it’s unfair for people who don’t need maternity care to endure higher health insurance costs because people like Van cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket. Without prenatal care, a greater percentage of expecting mothers will experience health risks, which in turn will exacerbate health care costs. In short, we as taxpayers will pay for it when those women go to public hospitals for their births. We will pay at some point. Why not pick the most humane and ultimately cost effective way even if that means paying a little more on your insurance plan now. Those unborn children deserve the best start to life we can give them. The healthier the start the more they will contribute to society instead of burdening it.
Before the federal health reform begins in 2014, it is extremely important that California takes an initiative to protect the pregnant women who do not have the means to pay for their maternity care. Although it seems likely that the decline in individual policies covering maternity care was a response to the rising health costs, it is the state's responsibility to require that insurance companies protect California's residents. As the Letter to the Editor points out, without money to pay for prenatal care, mothers and infants are at higher health risks which in the long run can cost the taxpayer even more money. SB222 should be passed because it will ensure that women and infants receive the care that they deserve. Moreover, in the long run, SB222 can possibly be cost-efficient by saving tax payers the money that they would have spent on the bills of women who did not have health coverage.
ReplyDeletePrenatal care should not be a luxury. Like this letter states, every child born in the United States deserves the best start to life that is possible. On this note, I agree that SB222 should be passed, and that it would end up being an intelligent economic decision. Children born after being carried with substandard prenatal care have a much higher probability of facing a lifetime of higher medical costs and complications. Mothers who carry these babies are also much more likely to need immediate medical help as well as long term medical care that tax payers will ultimately be subsidizing. By passing SB222, we will be pooling the risk and decreasing the chance of long term raised medical expenditures in exchange for a small increase in cost at the beginning of one's life.
ReplyDeleteRiley Sisk
Ensuring the health and livelihood of future generations must be actively pursued when talking about prenatal care. Western medicine is largely focused on treatment rather than prevention and by passing SB222 we can start aiming our efforts towards preventive health and minimizing long-term health risks that may be present in the future of these unborn children. Providing prenatal care for mothers helps ensure healthier and more productive generations that would benefit the country's well-being. Mothers facing poor health cannot risk bearing children under the same circumstances, especially when these mothers do not have proper access to prenatal services. By investing in coverage at an earlier stage, the result will pay off with better, more desirable results in the long-term.
ReplyDeleteSB 222 is a change in the right direction for healthcare in the United States. Focusing on preventative care, and providing prenatal and maternity care for self-insured women will ensure less health risks for both mother and baby, and reduce health care costs for taxpayers in the future. Establishing a mandate for all women to have maternity care is important, since most don't know they don't have maternity care until after they become pregnant. In the end, taxpayers have to pay for those without health insurance, so ensuring coverage for a pregnancy and delivery, which is a guaranteed health expense that runs in the thousands, can minimize losses and save the state money.
ReplyDeleteIt is also important to ensure that employers continue to provide health insurance to women on maternity leave. Having women choose between medical care and leave from work is really scary, especially during a time when the two--medical care and time off to heal/take care of the infant--are so critical for a new mother.
I definitely agree with all the points Sara made above. SB 122 is indeed the right direction to take--increasing our focus on preventative, prenatal care will reduce costs in the future.
ReplyDeleteIt is frightening that only 19% of individual policies include maternity care. Although insurance companies argue that policyholders who don't need it shouldn't have to contribute to such a benefit, I believe that this argument nullifies the point of insurance: risk-pooling. Van did not intend to get pregnant, and many people do not intend to get sick. In the long run, covering maternity care will reduce long-term health costs associated babies born to women without adequate prenatal care.