Contraceptives for Nuns? Government At Its Most Absurd

How absurd can a law be, to force nuns (who have taken vows of both poverty and celibacy) to explain to the state why they don’t want to pay for contraception? That requirement was too much for Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who issued a temporary injunction against ObamaCare’s mandate that health plans must cover contraception.

Nevertheless, some of the law’s opponents are engaged in a disproportionate response to the contraceptive mandate.

Read the entire column at The Independent Institute's Beacon blog or John Goodman's Health Policy Blog.

From the Archives: Heart Transplants to Hairpieces - The Questionable Benefit of State Benefit Mandates

This is a long study I wrote in 2008, which addresses the costs and benefits of state benefit mandates. At the time, a movement to mandate coverage of a controversial therapy for autism was sweeping through the states.

In it, I concluded that an additional mandated benefit increased the number of uninsured residents of a state by about one quarter of one percent. However, I was very tentative in this conclusion. This is why you don't find me in the conservative chorus calling for selling health insurance "across state lines" (whatever that means) to escape mandated benefits.

I had not posted it here previously because I could not find it on the Internet. Well, we have it now! The link is here.

Why Oregon Health Insurance Premiums Are Soaring

I suggest a couple of reasons.

Treating Cancer in Oregon: When In Doubt, Let the State Decide

While health insurers pay for diagnosis, surgery, and intravenous chemotherapy for cancer patients, they balk at paying for oral anticancer pills dispensed by pharmacies, according to a New York Times story. Although the new drugs are expensive, the journalist figures that they are surely cheaper conventional alternatives. So here's the obvious question: "If the retail drugs are better and cost less than the office-based therapies, why wouldn't profit-maximizing insurers pay for them?"

One answer may be that the supposition is wrong. The new drugs may have side effects that the article never discusses. There may be benefits to having cancer patients come to a clinic or a doctor's office for treatment to ensure adherence to therapy.

Obviously impatient with such questions, the state of Oregon has come to the rescue, by mandating health benefit plan coverage for oral anticancer drugs if a plan also covers other cancer treatments.

How did the Oregon legislators decide this was a good thing to do? According to Oregon law, a sponsor proposing a new mandated benefit is supposed to provide a report on the costs, efficacy, and other effects of mandating the benefit. The purpose of the law is to ensure that the costs do not outweigh the benefits. I telephoned the sponsoring legislator's office, which (very kindly) informed me that the legislative counsel had advised that this mandate did not call for the legally required analysis.

So, we'll never know what the costs and benefits of this mandated benefit are. The pace of imposition of mandated benefits for health insurance has increased in recent years, with little critical examination by legislatures (or journalists). This legislative overreach has dramatically reduced Americans' scope of choice in health insurance.