Sterilization birth control MUST be a covered service by insurance as free or low cost

I was refused a tubal ligation, unless I wanted to transition!

I am a woman. Not too long ago, I discussed with my OB/GYN that I wanted to get off of the birth control pill and immediately get a tubal ligation because the pills are making me demonstrably sick in multiple ways. I am still of child bearing age, but after taking “the pill” for a few decades now, and due to my higher age/pre or perimenopausal, my body is reacting negatively to them.

One doctor refused to do the procedure citing my weight and pushed me to get an IUD.

Another doctor said they could do the procedure, but there may be complications and to just get an IUD.

My insurance at the time (UHC) told me they would NOT cover any part of the procedure because THEY said it was “not necessary.” My bill would have been over $3,000, which is not affordable.

HOWEVER, when I called a clinic that provides bottom surgery for transitioning people, I was told that I could most certainly get a tubal ligation through them, my weight was not a problem, and insurance would likely cover the procedure since it is related to transgender health.

I propose the following:
Female or male sterilization MUST be covered by insurance as a no or low cost service to ANYONE who wants to have the procedure, since it is birth control and the “Affordable Care Act” was supposed to cover all birth control methods.

Insurance CANNOT dictate if a particular birth control method is or is not needed; this is SOLELY up to the patient’s preference after deciding with their doctor.

Doctors CANNOT refuse to complete the service based on THEIR theory of how the patient MIGHT feel about it in the future (ie: regret because they might want children in the future). They also CANNOT refuse to perform the surgery based on weight issues alone, since emergency abdominal-related surgeries are routinely performed on larger women and the same level of care and precaution should be taken for a scheduled surgery as it is for emergency surgeries.

FURTHERMORE
Anesthesia should be AUTOMATICALLY provided and covered with any form of invasive birth control procedures, including IUD insertion and removal, if the patient needs it, requests it, or even has a remote fear of any pain. Anesthesia should be automatic, with the patient having the option to refuse anesthesia if they do not want it. Doctors should NEVER conduct potentially painful internal procedures WITHOUT offering anesthesia.

Anesthesia for IUD insertion/removal, colposcopys, biopsies, and any other invasive procedure that can cause pain should be offered as general or local, depending on the patient’s personal needs.

1 Like

You’re going to push for mandates on what other people are required to do because you’re unable to not have sex?

Not just the “Insurance should have to pay for X” that is a terrible idea because we need fewer mandates on what insurance is required to cover; but you’re also going to go so far as to demand that doctors be prohibited from refusing to carry out a specific surgery based entirely on your insistence that you need it?

1 Like

This is not whether or not I have sex, as a 40+year old MARRIED woman. I see you are missing the WHOLE point, which is that tubal ligation is covered for transgender needs, but NOT normal, TYPICAL, birth control related needs.

You are missing also, that doctors are refusing women the procedure based on THEIR theory that the woman will want kids later in life, or that their husband would disapprove, or that they are too young (in their 20’s) to have it done. This is a travesty and infringement upon women and their right to do what they need to do with their bodies.

Also, No, I don’t have a problem not having sex, but my husband does! And condoms are only 87% effective. IUD’s are dangerous. As a woman in my 40s who CANNOT take the pill anymore (as it is indeed affecting my health negatively in MANY ways), tubal ligation is the best option. IUD’s run many risks of failure and injury to women as well.

Ask yourself why insurance will cover it for an ELECTIVE, COSMETIC appeal for trans, but NOT a legitimate medical need for a normal functioning woman.

1 Like

Then what we should be focusing on is ending all requirements that tubal litigation for surgical mutilation procedures be covered.

It’s just as much a travesty and infringement to mandate that doctors perform elective surgeries they do not want to perform.

Under no circumstances should doctors be prohibited from refusing to perform cosmetic surgeries.

Better question is why insurance covers elective cosmetic surgeries for surgical mutilation in the first place and why isn’t an end being brought to that.

We both agree that there is a problem with what is covered, but we have opposite opinions on the solution.