Securing Campus Access to Birth Control

There are many ways in which women’s health issues have been compromised under the Bush administration, but few have affected as many women as the Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), which narrowly passed through Congress with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Dick Cheney.

The DRA includes a clause which eliminated the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to partially subsidize the cost of prescription birth control to university health centers and women’s health clinics. Before the passage of the DRA, drug companies sold oral contraception to these clinics at greatly reduced rates, and in exchange were allowed to pay reduced Medicaid rebates to states. When the DRA went into effect last January, the price of birth control rose from $3-$10 per month to $30-$50 per month. This clause, overlooked by members of Congress, was the result of an “accidental rewording” of previous legislation.

However, this mistake puts the women who most need low-cost birth control in jeopardy. Prescription birth control is the most effective means of preventing unplanned pregnancies, aside from abstinence. Women who depended on clinics for affordable birth control are increasingly turning to less dependable methods of contraception or, worse, using none at all. Many women are turning to emergency contraception as their primary method of pregnancy prevention, despite the fact that health officials advise against this. In the past year, sales of Plan B (commonly known as the morning-after pill) have doubled. It is crucial that women have affordable access to the contraceptive stability and dependability of prescription birth control.

This oversight has not gone unnoticed, either by female college students filling their prescriptions or by legislators. In November 2007, Congressman Joseph Crowley of the Bronx and Senator Barack Obama introduced HR4054 and S2347, respectively. These bills would reinstate the Medicaid incentive and help provide affordable birth control to women who depend on it. They have received incredibly wide-ranging bipartisan support—the Senate bill has 31 co-sponsors and the House bill has 161. Despite this overwhelming support, both bills have been held up in committee since their introduction. It is not clear why this Congress chooses to show a disregard for the health needs of 51 percent of its constituents by allowing this legislation to fall by the wayside, especially considering it carries no cost for the federal government. This legislative blunder must be fixed in order to guarantee access to reliable reproductive health care.

Even when Congress does sign this into law, the corrective measures will not take effect until January of next year. Thus the burden necessarily falls to clinics and health centers to make up for the difference until Congress sees fit to correct its error. The Activist Council of the Columbia University College Democrats, Take Back the Night, Columbia ACLU, and Students for Choice have been working with the Columbia College Student Council and Columbia Health Services on crafting a campus response to this issue.

Other campuses have had quick and varied responses. Barnard, with a dispensary of its own, chose to stock up on birth control at pre-DRA prices. While a decent temporary solution, it doesn’t solve the problem of more expensive non-generics, and it is not tenable in the long term as stock-piles run out. Other schools, such as Princeton, choose to subsidize the cost of oral contraceptives where most prescription birth control is available at a $6-per-month co-pay or, like Dartmouth, to completely subsidize the cost of certain birth control.

Columbia’s insurance covers contraception in a three-tier system, under which generics (e.g. Apri and Sprintec) are offered at a $10-per-month co-pay, name-brands with a generic equivalent (e.g. Seasonique) are offered at a $25-per-month co-pay, and name-brands with no generic equivalent (e.g. Ortho and Yasmin) are offered at a $40-per-month co-pay. The generic fee of $10 is a standard and affordable cost for a month of birth control pills, and those opting for a second-tier drug are doing so out of a particular brand preference. However, there are women on campus who medically require third-tier drugs, and $40 a month is simply too much for many college students.

Ultimately, a permanent solution will need to come from Congress, but the bills are inactive and we cannot wait until the end of the legislative year for affordable birth control. Health Services has done a poor job of informing the student body of its options and of coming up with concrete solutions for women who are unable to afford their prescriptions. Although we have tried to educate the student body through events and have spoken with the administration, more action is needed to publicize and fully inform students about the pros and cons of contraception and the plans Columbia offers.

Securing affordable birth control for this campus is an important issue with a practical solution. The Campaign for Cheaper Birth Control will be working to collect signatures from students, and it will build momentum in order to put pressure on Columbia. We will also continue to lobby Congress, as part of a nationwide movement to pass HR4054. Columbia has the resources to support students financially through a temporary fund, and we urge the University to take immediate action to protect students’ health until Congress passes new legislation.

Mara Richard is a Barnard College junior majoring in art history and political science. She is lead activist for the CU Dems. Anna Scaife is a Barnard College first-year. She is the coordinator of the Campaign for Cheaper Birth Control.