U.S. Court Rules Excluding Prescription Birth Control From Insurance Coverage Is Discriminatory.

2001 JUN 28 - (NewsRx Network) -- In a widely-watched lawsuit, a drugstore chain in the Seattle-area of Washington state was ordered on June 12, 2001, to include contraceptives for women in its employee health insurance plan.

U.S. district judge Robert S. Lasnik ruled in favor of pharmacist in her suit against Bartell Drug Co. in a case that marks the first federal challenge in the U.S. to employers who don't cover birth control.

"Although the plan covers almost all drugs and devices used by men, the exclusion of prescription contraceptives creates a gaping hole in the coverage offered to female employees, leaving a fundamental and immediate health care need uncovered," Lasnik wrote.

The employee, who works for the Bartell chain, contended that the policy violated the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act. But Bartell lawyer James Dickens claimed that interpretation of the pregnancy law is wrong. Thousands of pages of the Congressional Record show no mention of birth control, he said. "The state of not being pregnant was not covered by that law," he said. Besides, Dickens said, Bartell's plans exclude a broad range of family planning services.

Nationally, women's groups have been trying for years to force employers to cover contraceptives in health insurance. The debate became particularly charged after the introduction of Viagra, the male impotence pill, which some insurers cover.

The U.S. Congress in 1998 required that health plans for federal employees cover prescription contraceptives.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a statement praising the court ruling.