But, hey, abstience is still free, kids!Follow

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4958312.html


Facing steep increases in the price of birth control, many local college students are weighing whether to shell out several hundred more dollars each year, switch medications or just go without oral contraceptives.

Prices have tripled at universities around the country, including Houston, because of a change in the Medicaid rebate law that discourages pharmaceutical companies from offering big discounts on medications to college health centers.

Starting last week, the most popular oral contraceptive at the University of Houston's health center, Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, sold for $35 for a monthly pack, compared with the previous $10.

"That's a huge hike," said the center's chief nurse, Laura Moore, who is helping students identify alternatives, such as cheaper generics or condoms. She can sympathize; until last week, she, too, bought Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo at the university's reduced rate.

Before this year, college health centers could buy contraceptives and other drugs at nominal prices from pharmaceutical companies. But the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which went into effect in January, imposes a disincentive for companies to sell discounted drugs by requiring those that do so to pay more to participate in Medicaid.

So health centers now are paying market prices for oral contraceptives and shifting the extra cost to the students, staff and faculty. The new prices affect women who purchase birth control from university health centers, regardless of whether they qualify for Medicaid.

Let me make sure I read that right...Republican Congress passes bill signed by Republican President that makes companies pay government more money if they sell drugs to people for less money.

Oh, ok. Now it makes sense.

So to reduce the national debt they want to charge companies that give a discount more money to participate in the medicaid program? Which is of course passed on to consumers. Which means that less money is availible to spend in the marketplace, or to invest in research.

That's not even good conservative policy!

Frankly if college students have to decided between $25 a month or grabing a handful of condoms every week, I could care less, but for people with actual medical emergencies (or women who need birth control for medical reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant) this is kinda horseshit.

While stated simply, such a decision isn't quite so black and white. The latter takes birth control entirely out of the hands (shhh) of the woman. Realizing I'm a control freak, I'm sure as hell not going to leave it entirely up to someone else to keep me from getting pregnant unless they've had a vasectomy. Hell, maybe not then either, I'm paranoid.

Nexa

Sorry, I evidently didn't clearly state my point. Regardless of where the condom comes from, it is still, by nature, leaving the birth control up to the man. While I suppose the woman *could* put the condom on him herself and be assured that it was done correctly, this is not usually the case. As a woman, knowing that *I'm* the one at risk of being impregnated, I like having control of birth control and knowing it is being applied correctly. Sure, there are many other options, but I was simply comparing the two currently being discussed.

Nexa

Don't they have to pay a fee, albeit a small one, for drugs in places like the UK and France?

...and Cuba?

In the UK it's £6.85 (About $13) regardless of the actual cost of the drugs. $20K complex statins or cell blockers - £6.85

Of course, if the real price is below £6.85, you just buy it yourself instead of paying the prescription charge.

But, if you're a child, a full-time student, a preggie woman, a pensioner or on a low income, the fee is waived. Only about 15% of people have to pay anything for meds.

Don't know about France or Cuba. I just know our healthcare system covers everyone and costs a fraction of the US one, primarily because our hospitals and HMO equivalents don't have to knock out a profit.

The law does not target contraceptives specifically, and some policy wonks say its effect on college health centers was inadvertent. But pharmaceutical companies tended to sell only birth control at deep discounts to colleges, partly to develop loyal customers.


But if you don't target the childrens and sex, who would read?

I'd rather see the law and find out how companies were milking it for billions before I worry about drunk college kids and their sex.

I asked my self the same question after you posted this...

What the f'uck is the point of this?

You made it seem as though this was some sort of right wing plight to force kids into "abstience".

Really, it was most likely a drug company loophole that was closed.

But if you make it sound as though poor kids are suffering because of the ebil guverment, you miss the point of this.

Not sure if this was just an interesting read or a boring cut and paste.

I'd say nearer 95%

The other 8% are innumerate

No, ya stupid fuckslap. With profits higher then ever before, CEO's taking millions upon millions, corporate payouts, political payouts, there is no reason in the world why Birth Control and Condoms (and other contraceptives) shouldn't be free.

It's in the best interest. It prevents more accidental births which this country and world can not support, prevents the spread of disease which keeps the need for drugs down, so on and so forth. Consider it Trickle Down Health Care. It could pay for itself.

Oh wait, I did think of a reason why it isn't free. Because a patient cured is a customer lost.

Not sure if "incentive" is the correct word. While I haven't dug through it completely, what I can gather so far is that basically companies would sell cheap drugs to some health centers (at below market prices), but then make up the cost by charging Medicaid for the drugs they dispensed. This effectively washed out from the companies perspective (but gave them good PR, so it was worth doing). However, the government was essentially footing the bill.

Medicaid was not intended to pay out for medications to people who didn't qualify for the program, which is what was basically happening as a result of this loophole. We can debate the merits of socialized medicine and whether the government *should* subsidize things like birth control for college students, but we should actually have that debate instead of doing it via a loophole in the law.



I think that the charging companies thing really is a side effect. They're trying to punish companies that deal medicaid drugs "on the side" so to speak. The purpose presumably was to reduce the amount the government has to payout through medicaid. The increased cost was (as far as I can tell) designed to offset this so that companies could choose either route, but wouldn't hurt the taxpayer as a result. The effect on college health centers is kinda secondary.


Um... Not to be obvious though, but is 35 bucks a month for birth control really that ridiculous? I've done the whole "starving college student" thing, but I'm quite sure there was never a time I couldn't have affordede that. Party a bit less and maybe it wont be such a hardship. Aren't college kids supposed to be learning about adult responsiblities? This would appear to be a great start.

Been that long, eh? Yes in fact the $10 a month price I was paying for birth control was just about on track (I usually live on a $3-$5 a day budget after rent/utilities)

Adult responsibilities? Like getting pregnant before finishing my masters or like having the price of birth control jump? Which lesson was I suppose to learn?

Yeah, even looking at my senior year, I made about $600/month. #360 a month went to rent, I spent $100/month on food, $40ish for electricity, $35ish a month for basic phone service. That left around $65 dollars a month for incidentals like birth control, paying to see a doctor, unexpected school supplies, etc, etc.

Fun times ;)

Nexa