Christian Co. Health Dept. to stop providing cancer screens, contraceptives to residents of other counties

As of Jan. 1, the Christian County Health Department will not provide contraceptives or cancer screening to indigent patients if they do not reside in the county. Nick Tabor of the Kentucky New Era reports the department will provide those services to other counties' residents if the county in which they reside has signed a contract with Christian County before the Jan. 1 deadline agreeing to repay Christian County for those services. Tabor writes that the policy is not applicable to those services that are covered by state or federal government reimbursements.

The health department's move was prompted by a budget deficit that is close to $200,000, some of it traceable to a lack of reimbursement for contraceptive care. Mark Pyle, director of the department, told Tabor that residents of both Todd and Trigg counties often seek services in Christian County and Christian county taxpayers foot that bill. Pyle explained that there’s nothing in state law saying the health departments have to serve anyone who comes in, regardless of residence.

The New Era is behind a paywall. To obtain a subscription, go here.

Will birth-control mandate cost more or less? Yet to be seen

Will requiring insurance companies to provide contraception be cost-neutral, as the Obama administration claims? It is unclear, and so is whether insurance companies will make Catholic institutions pay more. These were the findings of FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit, consumer-advocate project funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

In support of its claim, the administration cites data from Hawaii's birth-control mandate, which shows health insurance premiums "did not appear" to increase. The study also found the number of pregnancies increased after contraception coverage was required.

But when Pennsylvania considered imposing a similar mandate, a state agency found "the amount of possible savings relative to the cost of the legislation is unclear." Findings were also unclear in Connecticut when officials there looked at whether or not insurance plans saved enough because there were fewer pregnancies to offset the cost of providing coverage. A Texas study found insurance companies would not save enough because women would buy contraception on their own.

A recent survey of 15 insurance companies found six thought costs would increase and another three felt the move would be neutral in cost. None felt they would save money because of the mandate.

"Until better data are available, we're unable to conclude whether the Obama birth-control mandate is likely to result in a net cost increase or not," FactCheck reports.