Elizabeth Hovde of the Washington Policy Center discusses SB 5242, which would require state-regulated health plans in the state to cover abortion with no cost-sharing charges to an enrollee
Elizabeth Hovde
Washington Policy Center
One of the five bills lawmakers will consider Tuesday concerning abortion is Senate Bill 5242, which a press release from Senate Democrats describes this way: “SB 5242 seeks to ease the burden of out-of-pocket costs by eliminating cost-sharing for patients seeking abortion care.”
It was scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate Committee on Health and Long Term Care at 8 a.m. today (Jan. 24). I’m interested in finding out more about how this would work and hope lawmakers will look at what this law would do other than allow them to champion what they see as abortion rights.
Speaking about the handful of bills seeing legislative activity Tuesday, Sen. Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver and chair of the Senate Health and Long Term Care committee, said, “Hearing and considering all of these bills on the same day demonstrates the ongoing comprehensive work we are focused on and signals how serious we are about protecting the fundamental right to reproductive healthcare.”
Another serious concern to Washingtonians is the rising cost of health care. Government regulations add to those costs. Dictating what insurers cover and what their copays and deductibles look like impacts all those who buy insurance and pay premiums in our state.
Right now, Washington state requires state-regulated plans to cover abortion, but it allows them to apply the plan’s regular deductible, coinsurance and/or copay. SB 5242 (and a companion bill, House Bill 1115) would require state-regulated health plans in Washington state to cover abortion with no cost-sharing charges to an enrollee. Read more about how the states differ in their approaches to insurance requirements for abortion services here.
Supporters of this no-cost-sharing-allowed bill say that abortion shouldn’t be impacted by one’s ability to pay. How far does that argument go? To how many health services? And should the government be deciding?
I’ll be tuning into the hearing.
Elizabeth Hovde is a policy analyst and the director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights at the Washington Policy Center. She is a Clark County resident.
Also read:
- Opinion: Let’s eliminate light rail and tolling from the I-5 Bridge replacement at the same timeEditor Ken Vance shares changes to elements of the proposed project that he believes many Southwest Washington residents would support.
- Opinion: State salary report shows running a school district is often the best job in townLiv Finne of the Washington Policy Center believes that it’s important for the public to be informed about how much school leaders are paid and how effective the system is at educating children. Washington State Fiscal Information
- Letter: ‘The process for restoring an effective representative form of government is now about the healthy functioning of citizens’ minds on important matters’Matt Garland states that Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is misusing federal funds by using taxpayer dollars to pay for her campaign mailers and that her town halls are really not public outreach town halls.
- Should Washington workers fired for refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine be rehired by the state?Should Washington workers fired for refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine be rehired by the state?
- Opinion: Godspeed to rehiring – Get on board, governorElizabeth Hovde believes an outreach effort by the state should contain a mea culpa that’s as loud and clear as was the shaming of public employees who chose not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.