Letter: Don't rush into insurance coverage for oral contraception

Because other new drugs for the treatment of male genitourinary disorders have been marketed recently and could have provided a similar opportunity for the gender inequity argument, it is implied that erectile dysfunction and female oral contraception are comparable entities. This illustrates a grossly insensitive regard for male sexual dysfunction.

Rather than considering government-mandated intervention in health insurance underwriting, this is an opportunity to emphasize the importance of choosing health insurance plans that serve patients' needs. Because about 30 percent of insurance policies already provide benefits for oral contraceptives, it is clear that employers presently have the option of purchasing plans which cover a variety of conditions, if the insureds are willing to pay for them.

Insurance coverage for male contraceptives has never been seriously considered, refuting the argument of gender bias in the provision of insurance benefits.

Because the monetary burden of expanding health insurance benefits is finite, there is reason to question the propriety of increasing expenditures for contraception rather than conditions whose seriousness has greater public awareness, such as heart disease, cancer and AIDS.

The gender bias argument for the mandated provision of birth control pills then must be entered into competing demands of special-interest groups. Such a predicament belies the futility of government priorities driven by the demands of special-interest groups.

However well-intentioned support for mandatory provision of contraceptive benefits may seem, there are serious negative implications such legislation has for the availability of health insurance which must be considered.

Dr. Harrison H. Sheld

archive