Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Public Funding of Family Planning is Essential, Even Under Health Reform

This week, as we celebrate the first anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, which promises to bring great benefits to women in this country, new threats to women’s health care have emerged. Last month the House of Representatives voted to eliminate federal funding of Planned Parenthood and cut entirely the Title X program, which supports family planning clinics across the country. Though the Senate has since rejected this proposal, House Republicans have vowed to continue to push for these cuts.

Many have spoken out about the harm this would have on low-income women, who rely on Planned Parenthoods and other family planning clinics for important preventive care like contraception and cancer screenings. Even in Massachusetts, where 98 percent of residents have health insurance due to groundbreaking state health reform, such cuts would be devastating.

Massachusetts has a robust network of family planning clinics, Planned Parenthood among them, which offer contraceptive services and counseling, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, and cervical and breast cancer screening on a sliding fee scale. In the wake of Massachusetts reform, family planning clinics continue to play a role in providing services to the Commonwealth’s most vulnerable residents.

In 2008, a year after Massachusetts’ health reform law took effect, Ibis Reproductive Health and the Massachusetts Department of Health Family Planning Program undertook research to explore the impact of reform on low-income women’s access to contraception. We conducted a survey and interviews with family planning providers and also held focus groups with English- and Spanish-speaking low-income women.

We found that health reform has provided a number of benefits to women and many women expressed relief over finally having insurance.

But our research also uncovered new barriers. Information about insurance plans and what is covered is confusing and difficult to navigate. For women new to insurance, having to get a prescription for contraception filled at a pharmacy instead of getting one’s method onsite at the clinic required education and support. Many women struggled to keep up with the numerous paperwork requirements to prove eligibility for state-subsidized plans and were pushed on and off insurance plans as a result, which likely affected their ability to consistently stay on contraception.

Providers also worried that teenagers on their parents’ insurance would not seek out family planning services for fear of their parents’ finding out.

Immigrant women also reported experiencing barriers to health care. Many do not qualify for subsidized insurance plans under reform and some have stopped seeking health care because they are afraid of being fined or deported if authorities find out they are undocumented and uninsured.

Our research also showed that family planning providers—in addition to their traditional role of providing sexual and reproductive health care—were taking on the challenge of addressing barriers for these populations most in need. Family planning clinic staff helped women enroll in insurance plans, determined their eligibility for state-subsidized plans, and spent time helping women decipher what their plans cover.

Family planning clinics also addressed patients’ other primary health care needs, including in some cases helping managing chronic conditions like diabetes and mental illness. They have also been a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured—they will never turn anyone away.

When Massachusetts health reform was first in effect, the Commonwealth made enrollment grants to health care agencies to help them get their clients signed up for health insurance. In spite of dramatic reductions to those grants, and after massive cuts to the state budget following the recession, family planning providers continue to serve women above and beyond what they have the resources to do.

Federal funds from the Title X program and state funds support Massachusetts’ 11 family planning agencies, which include 81 clinics located across the Commonwealth. If Congress succeeds in eliminating funding for Title X, it will succeed in eliminating subsidized services for the women who need them most. It will also lead to increased costs in Massachusetts and other states, because investments in family planning save dollars. We can hardly afford to stop funding cost-saving programs in the current economic environment.

The major goal of health reform—both in Massachusetts and nationally—is to achieve universal health care coverage. Even with the great strides Massachusetts has made, we still need a safety net. Continued support for Title X and family planning providers, including Planned Parenthood, supports the goals of health reform and ensures access to critical preventive health services for the most vulnerable women.


This blog is part of the #HERvotes blog carnival. Read more HERvotes posts by the Feminist Majority
and other women’s groups.

The Affordable Care Act and Women

By Desiree Hoffman
YWCA USA Director of Advocacy and Policy

March 23, 2011, marked the first anniversary of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Yet polls show that less than 47% of Americans know how it affects them.1 Lack of understanding was highest among low-income households and the uninsured. When asked, “Do you feel you have enough information about the health reform law to understand how it will impact you personally?,” 61 percent of households with incomes less than $40,000 per year said “no;” 60 percent of uninsured individuals responded “no.”

Today, many households are struggling in a difficult economy and rightly feel a sense of disconnection between their own lives and politics. It isn’t surprising that many people don’t feel they have enough information about the ACA, let alone feel they have accurate information.

Recently I had the chance to speak to a room full of seniors and retirees about the ACA. What stood out to me was the audience knew more about how the law protected their grandchildren than they did about how ACA helps them. Under the new law, the audience knew that insurers could no longer discriminate based on a child’s preexisting condition, and that dependent children under the age of 26 could remain on their parent’s health care plans. What the mostly female audience did not know, however, was that they would no longer be charged co-pays for preventative services such as mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, immunizations, and annual physical exams.

Retirees and seniors were not aware that the ACA:

  • provides free mammograms every one to two years for women aged 40 and above, and patients identified as high-risk candidates for breast cancer can receive consultation on chemoprevention, and genetic evaluation;
  • makes it illegal for insurers to deny coverage to women based on pre-existing conditions, including cesarean sections, breast cancer, chronic conditions like high blood pressure or diabetes and even domestic violence; and
  • ensures that low-income and moderate-income women and families are able to afford health care by expanding Medicaid and offering new affordability credits to families — between 133 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (Example: The range is between $29,328 to $88,000 for a family of four based on 2009 HHS guidelines) — to help pay for health care premiums.

Most shocking to me was that the audience of primarily women had no idea that, before ACA, insurers refused to cover survivors of domestic violence. Before the law, insurers defined domestic violence as a pre-existing condition since many victims often had higher utilization rates of the emergency room and, thus, were viewed as “high risk” or more costly to insure, providing the basis for refusal of health care coverage at all. Under ACA, an insurance company can no longer discriminate against — and re-victimize — a domestic violence survivor by denying health insurance coverage.

From the provisions that help children and grandchildren, to the measures that address breast cancer and help domestic violence survivors obtain health care insurance, the ACA clearly makes healthcare more affordable for women and their families. While the affordability credits do not kick- in until 2014, they are important components of the law that help low and moderate income families. People are struggling with rising healthcare costs and stagnant wages in an economy where unemployment remains high; expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies to help pay for health care premiums will help tremendously.

Despite these benefits, there are intensifying efforts to repeal or weaken the ACA. At the beginning of the 112th Congress, bills were introduced to repeal the entire law, but they did not muster enough votes to pass. Now, there is a flurry of amendments to halt agencies from fully implementing key provisions of the ACA, and bills to restrict comprehensive reproductive health care services.

This month is declared both national Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Knowing the important benefits that ACA means for breast cancer prevention and treatment and for survivors of domestic violence, there is no better way to commemorate this month than by speaking out in support of the ACA to your Senators and Representative or by educating yourself and your loved ones on the benefits of the new law.

To learn more about the new law visit:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/relief-for-americans-and-businesses#healthcare-menu

This blog is part of the #HERvotes blog carnival. Read more HERvotes posts by the Feminist Majority and other women’s groups.

#HERvotes Blog Carnival Takes on Health Care

Welcome to the third #HERVotes Blog Carnival! This time, the focus is on women and health care. The blog posts below share personal stories and details about the new benefits from the health care reform law, while also offering original insights on what’s at stake for women and health care. You’ll also find personal stories and analysis delving into the health care services we’ve all gained–and will gain–through the passage of the new health care reform law.

Some of the most impactful new health care services for women and families that have come about because of the new health care reform laws include:

• All new health care plans now must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay, or coinsurance.
• Young adults are now allowed to stay on their parent’s health care plan until they turn 26 years old.
• Insurance companies are now prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential health care benefits, like hospital stays.
• Insurance companies now cannot deny health care coverage to children under the age of 19 due to a pre-existing condition.

These new benefits are just the start of the increased coverage that will come about as a result of the new health care reform law. And to find out more about developments in coverage, go to www.Healthcare.gov for the most updated answers to your enrollment and coverage questions.

Last but not least: Since many of these resources and stories will help moms and families looking for information about health care coverage, please be sure to share the link to this blog carnival on Facebook and to follow our Twitter conversation at #HERvotes.

Enjoy reading the many thoughtful and eye-opening blogs below!

This blog is part of the #HERvotes blog carnival.

***

Personal Stories

Friday, October 1, 2010

Got Equality?


By Emmy Bengtson and Mehrin Rahman

LGBT rights have certainly been a hot topic this year, and the 2010 Senate race in California is no exception. However, whereas Senator Boxer has consistently proven she is a proud supporter of gay rights, Fiorina seems to want to waste no more time on a civil rights discussion than she does on talking about abortion or the environment.

Fiorina voted FOR Prop 8 and has said that “I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Moreover, since Prop 8 passed, she thinks that revisiting the issue of same-sex marriage is moot, even “not appropriate,” even though a federal court has found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional.

So now equal rights for LGBT people aren’t an important topic in this election? We’re starting to get the idea that Fiorina has been living under a rock. A big, multi-million-dollar rock.

Time and again, Fiorina has demonstrated that she’s out of touch with what Californians care about, from reproductive rights to the environment. And now, she’s out of touch with majority opinion on same-sex marriages: in a recent CNN poll, 52% of respondents said they think same-sex couples should have the right to marry and have their marriage recognized by the law.

In stark contrast to Fiorina, Senator Boxer has proven she will take a stand for same-sex marriage. For more than 17 years, Boxer has consistently worked towards equal LGBT rights: she voted no on bans on same-sex marriage several times (including Prop 8), voted to prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and she was given a perfect 100% pro-gay-rights rating by the Human Rights Campaign. Boxer is truly an ally.

The fight for same-sex marriage isn’t over yet. Try to keep up, Carly.

Vote for LGBT Rights. Vote Boxer.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Go Green or Go Home Carly!

By Mehrin Rahman and Emmy Bengtson

Actually, just go home...

The environment was definitely a hot topic of yesterday’s debate between Fiorina and Senator Boxer.

Fiorina accused Senator Boxer of being “beholden” to “extreme environmental groups”. Of course when asked to give examples of the groups she accused Senator Boxer of supporting, Fiorina stuttered, made excuses, and tried to do what she does best: change the subject when it really matters.

Really, Carly? Well-respected groups like the Sierra Club, the California League of Conservation Voters, and Ocean Champions are the epitome of environmental extremism?

“It is shocking to me to see someone try to get to the United States Senate who would turn their back on the environment,” exclaimed Senator Boxer. And rightly so. While Boxer has won the support of prominent environmental groups, Fiorina was included in the League of Conservation Voters’ “Dirty Dozen”--a list of the most dangerous candidates to our environment. California has long prided itself on environmental awareness and conservation; do we really want one of the twelve worst candidates in the country working for us?

Fiorina also wants to hand over the California coast to big oil and expand off-shore drilling. Carly, need we remind you about BP and the Gulf Oil disaster?

And what about the 400,000+ jobs that would be put on the chopping block if our coast is destroyed? For someone who claims to be so job-focused (remember, other “trivial” issues like a woman’s right to choose aren’t even on her radar) this is a disconcerting position to take.

What’s more is that Fiorina favors Prop 23, which, if passed, would be a disaster for the California environment. Prop 23 puts an end to limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Talk about extremism!

To top it all off, Fiorina says she doubts whether climate change is real.

The Sierra Club Chairman himself says: “While Senator Boxer is a proven leader in creating new clean energy jobs and protecting our environment, Carly Fiorina would take us backward. Fiorina’s skepticism about global warming and her support for new offshore oil drilling off our coast show just how out of touch she is with California voters.” Out of touch with the earth, and out of touch with California.

Vote for the environment. Vote Boxer.

Go Green or Go Home Carly!

By Mehrin Rahman and Emmy Bengtson

Actually, just go home...

The environment was definitely a hot topic of yesterday’s debate between Fiorina and Senator Boxer.

Fiorina accused Senator Boxer of being “beholden” to “extreme environmental groups”. Of course when asked to give examples of the groups she accused Senator Boxer of supporting, Fiorina stuttered, made excuses, and tried to do what she does best: change the subject when it really matters.

Really, Carly? Well-respected groups like the Sierra Club, the California League of Conservation Voters, and Ocean Champions are the epitome of environmental extremism?

“It is shocking to me to see someone try to get to the United States Senate who would turn their back on the environment,” exclaimed Senator Boxer. And rightly so. While Boxer has won the support of prominent environmental groups, Fiorina was included in the League of Conservation Voters’ “Dirty Dozen”--a list of the most dangerous candidates to our environment. California has long prided itself on environmental awareness and conservation; do we really want one of the twelve worst candidates in the country working for us?

Fiorina also wants to hand over the California coast to big oil and expand off-shore drilling. Carly, need we remind you about BP and the Gulf Oil disaster?

And what about the 400,000+ jobs that would be put on the chopping block if our coast is destroyed? For someone who claims to be so job-focused (remember, other “trivial” issues like a woman’s right to choose aren’t even on her radar) this is a disconcerting position to take.

What’s more is that Fiorina favors Prop 23, which, if passed, would be a disaster for the California environment. Prop 23 puts an end to limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Talk about extremism!

To top it all off, Fiorina says she doubts whether climate change is real.

The Sierra Club Chairman himself says: “While Senator Boxer is a proven leader in creating new clean energy jobs and protecting our environment, Carly Fiorina would take us backward. Fiorina’s skepticism about global warming and her support for new offshore oil drilling off our coast show just how out of touch she is with California voters.” Out of touch with the earth, and out of touch with California.

Vote for the environment. Vote Boxer.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

And the winner is... Barbara Boxer!

By Emmy Bengtson and Mehrin Rahman

Boxer wins!! Certainly in this debate and hopefully come November 2.

In their second meeting to discuss prominent issues of the upcoming election, Boxer and Fiorina answered questions on health care, abortion, immigration, the environment, and the economy.

Debate moderators Patt Morrison of the L.A. Times and KPCC and Gabriel Lerner of La Opinion pressed the issues to both candidates. Senator Boxer spoke with clarity on her opinions and in her rebuttals. Not surprisingly, Fiorina’s predominant debate strategy was to sidestep questions and avoid expressing her own ideas, instead attacking Senator Boxer.

We pro-choice supporters of Boxer were especially interested in hearing Fiorina’s explanation of her previous statement that she “absolutely would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if given the opportunity." In an attempt to change the subject--she obviously knows only a tiny percentage of Californians agree with her--Fiorina not only refused to explain her previous statement on abortion (besides saying that she “happen[s] to be pro-life”), but actually dismissed the topic of abortion in general. Fiorina accused Boxer of using reproductive rights to distract voters from what she sees as more pressing issues--namely the economy and employment. “The subject of this election is not abortion,” Fiorina said.

Really, Carly? Evidently you’re not attuned to all the voters--especially women--who see abortion as a make or break issue.

In a recent poll conducted by EMILY's List, 61% of women responders said they’d be more likely to vote if they knew they could “defeat a candidate who does not trust women to make decisions about their own reproductive health care.” Contrary to Fiorina’s misguided statement, abortion is clearly central to this year’s California Senate election.

Moreover, there is a very real threat to Roe v. Wade, as an increasing number of candidates for the U.S. Senate across the country this year have stated that they would deny abortion even in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the woman’s life. Fiorina’s evasion of the issue of abortion is little more than an attempt not to lose votes...abortion is very much a subject of this election.

By contrast, Senator Boxer made it very clear that she stands by Roe, reasserting her belief that abortion is a decision that must be made by the woman, not by the Senate. “I’m not going to put my views on anyone else,” she said, displaying an attitude we wish more Senators would share. Furthermore, Boxer believes that federal funds should be provided for women in the case of rape, incest, and endangerment of the women’s life.

So take note, Carly: pro-choice students throughout California are watching, listening, and ready to fight for a woman’s right to choose. We’re voting for Boxer, and we’re voting to keep abortion safe and legal.