The Debate Over ACA-Mandated Contraceptive Coverage: A Conversation with Adam Sonfield (February 11th)
www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com
Listen Now In late January in a case involving a Catholic charity, the US Supreme Court issuesd a ruling temporarily exempting religious-affiliated non-profits from providing ACA-required contraceptive coverage. (The ACA coverage requirement was based on an IOM recommendation that found birth control is "medically necessary." The requirement took effect January 1st). While churches and houses of worship are exempt, owned or controlled religious organizations can opt out of the contraceptive coverage requirement by completing and signing a form explaining their objection. However, opponents say by opting out - that then allows the employee to obtain contraceptive coverage through a separate insurance policy - they are complicit in immoral conduct, i.e., they too should be exempted outright. In addition, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases that involve for-profit companies similarly objecting to the requirement.
The Debate Over ACA-Mandated Contraceptive Coverage: A Conversation with Adam Sonfield (February 11th)
The Debate Over ACA-Mandated Contraceptive…
The Debate Over ACA-Mandated Contraceptive Coverage: A Conversation with Adam Sonfield (February 11th)
Listen Now In late January in a case involving a Catholic charity, the US Supreme Court issuesd a ruling temporarily exempting religious-affiliated non-profits from providing ACA-required contraceptive coverage. (The ACA coverage requirement was based on an IOM recommendation that found birth control is "medically necessary." The requirement took effect January 1st). While churches and houses of worship are exempt, owned or controlled religious organizations can opt out of the contraceptive coverage requirement by completing and signing a form explaining their objection. However, opponents say by opting out - that then allows the employee to obtain contraceptive coverage through a separate insurance policy - they are complicit in immoral conduct, i.e., they too should be exempted outright. In addition, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases that involve for-profit companies similarly objecting to the requirement.