New HHS clarification on ACA contraceptive coverage requirement specifies that insurance plans must cover at no cost to women all of the 18 contraceptive methods approved by the FDA. If a provider recommends a specific option or product, plans must cover it at no cost as well. Minimum Contraceptive Coverage…
- view as grid
- view as list
Public programs and private health insurance now pay for the vast majority of contraceptive services and supplies for women. However, complex and shifting regulations shaped by state and federal policy, legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage provision, and other factors affect the scope of coverage. New resources…
Repeal of the Affordable Care Act could have a profound impact on women, as the law fundamentally changed women’s health coverage, benefits, and access to care. In a new issue brief, the Kaiser Family Foundation outlines 10 ways women could be affected if the ACA is repealed or its provisions…
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide coverage for a broad range of preventive services, including most contraceptives for women. This policy was at the center of a Supreme Court case brought forward by for-profit corporations (Hobby Lobby and Conestoga) that successfully claimed that the contraceptive coverage requirement violated their religious rights. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear yet another challenge (Zubik v Burwell) to the contraceptive coverage requirement, this time brought by nonprofit corporations, claiming that the accommodation established by the federal government for religiously affiliated nonprofit employers with objections to contraception violates their religious rights.
This partnership survey from The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation explores what feminism means in today’s America, providing a detailed look at the complex views that both women and men hold about the word and the social movement that bears its name. The survey assesses the public’s priorities for improving women’s lives, their views on the relevance of the women’s movement, the role of government in promoting gender equality, their beliefs about discrimination, levels of social and civic engagement, and views on political and policy issues such as equal pay, birth control coverage, and abortion.
This report finds that donor governments provided US$1.4 billion in bilateral funding for family planning programs in low- and middle-income countries in 2014 – a 9 percent increase above 2013 and 32% above 2012 levels.
The U.S. government has a long history of supporting efforts to improve the health of women and families around the world. While many U.S. programs address women and family health generally, several are focused on them directly, including: maternal and child health (MCH), which includes immunization activities; family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH); and nutrition. This overview paper presents key findings for accompanying papers examining U.S funding for each of these sectors. They look at funding trends over time, the top country recipients of aid, the share of funding provided to the sector within the larger U.S. global health funding portfolio, and the role of the U.S. as a donor in the context of overall donor support.
In this post on The Huffington Post, Alina Salganicoff and Laurie Sobel offer a Q&A on “contraceptive-only” plans, an approach mentioned during oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell. In the Zubik case, a group of religiously affiliated nonprofits with religious objections to providing birth control coverage seek an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s provision requiring most plans to offer such coverage without cost-sharing.
The Kaiser Family Foundation initiated a family planning resource tracking project in 2013, adapting the methodology it has long used to track door government spending on HIV. Previous versions: December 2017 November 2016 November 2015 November 2014 November 2013
A new Kaiser Family Foundation report finds that donor government funding for family planning declined in 2016 for the second year in a row, decreasing to US$1.19 billion compared to US$1.34 billion in 2015. While the declines over this two-year period were largely due to exchange rate fluctuations and the timing of donor disbursements which accounted for 78 percent of the overall decrease, there were actual cuts in funding from some donor countries which accounted for 22 percent. Among the 10 donors profiled in the report, four donors decreased funding, including the two largest donors (the U.S. and the U.K.); five increased funding; and one remained flat.