Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed Colorado HB 1021 into law last week. The Denver Business Journal reports that it requires “all small-group and individual health insurance policies to include contraception and pregnancy coverage” “Proponents of [HB 1021] said it provides women with services that they sometimes had difficulty obtaining from their insurer.”
Then why not mandate that insurers offer a rider for contraception and prenatal coverage (optional supplement), instead of forcing everyone to pay the extra premium costs? That way, only people who want this coverage would buy it, and it would be available.
Could it be that the real reason is to use the strong arm of the law to further distort insurance into mandatory charity? That is, turn insurance into a tax?
The same argument can be made for all mandated benefits. A ballpark figure is that each mandate increases premiums by about 0.75%.
As for supplemental maternity coverage, HealthQuote360.com’s page on maternity insurance says:
Yes, most individual health plans will allow for an optional maternity benefit rider to be added to the plan for an additional cost. Almost all plans will have a waiting period of 6-12 months before any (or full) benefits will be paid out for maternity expenses.
Jane Molnar at MaternityInsurance.org writes:
… The best thing to do in this situation is get supplemental maternity insurance. Most health insurance companies offer this for families that are going through a pregnancy. This would be an addition to your current health coverage. This supplement would cover any health visits that are related to the pregnancy.
I’d be more confident of how available these products are if I could find some quotes on-line, or documentation that they exist. Comments on this are welcome.
