Posted at 02:57 PM ET, 02/10/2012

TheWashingtonPost

Santorum: Insurance shouldn’t cover birth control at all
By Greg Sargent

As I noted below, whatever the politics of contraception for Obama, his shift could very well turn this into a wedge issue against the GOP, as more and more Republicans are asked whether (like the majority of Americans) they think insurance companies should be required to cover birth control.

Well, here’s Exhibit A. Rick Santorm tells Sam Stein he’s against Obama’s new proposal, because insurance shouldn’t cover birth control under any circumstances:

The Huffington Post asked Santorum whether he was placated.

“No,” he replied, “not at all.”…

Elaborating on why he opposed the revised version of the Obama contraception rule, he explained that he didn’t believe insurance companies should cover contraception at all.

“This has nothing to do with access,” he said. “This is having someone pay for it, pay for something that shouldn’t be in an insurance plan anyway because it is not, really an insurable item. This is something that is affordable, available. You don’t need insurance for these types of relatively small expenditures. This is simply someone trying to impose their values on somebody else, with the arm of the government doing so. That should offend everybody, people of faith and no faith that the government could get on a roll that is that aggressive.”

Here you have more evidence that the resurgence of social issues could work against Mitt Romney. As the above shows, Santorum is perfectly comfortable speaking the language of the culture warrior, and it’s likely that this will increase pressure on Romney to flatly state his own opposition to requiring insurance companies to cover contraception — and even to insurance companies covering it at all.

After all, this is a position that’s strongly supported by the GOP base. In the new Fox poll, 71 percent of Tea Partyers, and 52 percent of conservatives, disapprove of requiring insurance companies to cover contraception. Given the passions that have now been whipped up around the issue, and especially since Obama has now stamped his name on this policy idea, it’s not hard to imagine that this could become a litmus test issue for GOP candidates — like Romney. Particularly since Romney, thanks to Santorum’s presence, is facing new pressure to connect with religious conservatives.

Yet embracing this position could be toxic in the general election, because large majorities support the use of government power to compel insurance companies to cover birth control. In the Fox poll this position is supported by 61 percent overall, 58 percent of independents, 53 percent of men, 67 percent of women, and by majorities or pluralities of virtually every age and income group. Santorum doesn’t care about this, since he’s a culture warrior. Romney will care about it. But he may have to own the unpopular postition, anyway.

By the way, we still haven’t heard from virtually all of the GOP leadership and a whole range of GOP officials on Obama’s proposal.

Update: Polling numbers fixed. That’s 58 percent of independents who support requiring coverage of birth control.

By Greg Sargent
 | 
02:57 PM ET, 02/10/2012

Personal Post

• Tumblr
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon
• Digg
• Delicious

Next:
Sunday Open Thread

GREENFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) – The town of Greenfield is changing its health insurance plan.  Greenfield will save somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 in the next year.  

The town is switching to Health New England.  Greenfield has about 600 people eligible for this insurance.

Mayor William Martin made the announcement Friday afternoon in the town hall.  Health insurance is the second largest item in their budget every year, behind the school department. 

Lane Kelly is Greenfields Finance Director.  She told 22News they spend between $6 and $6.5 million dollars on insurance every year, so this change will benefit everyone in Greenfield.

Any time we can save on that, which we have done, means that its less of an impact.  We can give the same services and its not as costly to the taxpayers, says Kelly.

The town also reached a new contract with its fire department that runs through June, with a commitment to negotiate on a new three year contract that would run through 2015.

RED BANK, N.J., Feb. 1, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ –
Plymouth Rock Assurance – Teachers’ Insurance Plan of NJ recently awarded a grant to a New Jersey elementary school through their Quotes for Cash® program, enabling the school to implement innovative learning techniques for students. Forked River School, (within the Lacey Township School District) hosted their first, “Family Chess Night,” where members of the Forked River Chess Club gathered with their families to share what they have learned about chess this year. Teachers’ Insurance donated the grant titled, “Chess for Better Achievement,” allowing for the purchase of a life-sized chess set that students can utilize as a learning tool.

The grant application notes the benefits of chess as being recognized as a learning tool to develop young minds and meeting curriculum standards for gifted education, mathematics, language arts and higher level thinking skills. The grant was submitted by teacher Andrea Blatt, who was just awarded a second grant from Teachers’ Insurance for her innovative submission of “CSI Forked River.”

Lacey Township School District has been a Quotes for Cash partner since 2009. Teachers’ Insurance invites districts throughout NJ to join the Quotes for Cash program giving them access to grants such as this that can be used to conduct enrichment projects. “We want our Quotes for Cash partners to know how much we value our relationships with them,” said Marc V. Buro, President, Teachers Auto Insurance Company of New Jersey. “Being able to fund imaginative events like this through our grant program, we can make a difference to the educational community, supporting teacher initiatives and schools throughout NJ.”

To learn more about the Teachers’ Insurance Plan of NJ, Quotes for Cash, and the many other events and special programs they provide exclusively to the educational community throughout NJ, please contact us for further information.

Teachers Auto Insurance Company of New Jersey provides low rates and exclusive auto insurance services to active and retired employees of New Jersey licensed educational facilities, members of the New Jersey Parent Teacher Association and other school professionals. For more information, please visit
www.PlymouthRockNJ.com/Teachers . Insurance offered by Plymouth Rock Management Company of New Jersey under the brand name Plymouth Rock Assurance. Coverage underwritten by Teachers Auto Insurance Company of New Jersey.

SOURCE Teachers’ Insurance Plan of NJ

Copyright (C) 2012 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

Updates below.

The White House had a conference call with reproductive health advocates this morning, in advance of its planned noon-time announcement of its decision to accommodate religious institutions in their objections to the requirement that their health insurance plans provide co-pay-free contraception to their employees.

According to Sara Hutchinson, policy director for Catholics for Choice, and Jon OBrien, the groups president, administration officials told activists on the call that they would require insurance companies (but not the employers) to provide separate coverage for co-pay-free contraceptives, but not as part of the insurance plan that the religious institution pays for. Essentially theyve carved out a way for religiously affiliated institutions who supposedly have a religious objection to keep their hands clean, said Hutchinson.

The details of how this would play out, though, are unclear. For example, the White House did not know how it would enforce the rule for employers who self-insure, rather than purchase group coverage from an insurance company. In addition, Hutchinson and OBrien said it was unclear how the government would compel the insurance companies to provide the coverage, or how it would be paid for if women were to get the coverage cost-free. Another question that arose on the call was what would happen if the insurance company claimed it had a religious objection to providing the coveragea question administration officials did not have an answer for.

Weretaking some comfort from the fact that the White House didnt completely cave in but theres a lot of concern that whether women in Catholic-controlled institutions get their contraception or not is basically on a lot of hope and a lot of prayer, said OBrien. The reality is we dont know all the details.

As of late yesterday, reproductive rights advocates I spoke to were unaware that the White House would be announcing the accommodation today. The signers of a letter from 20 religious organizations that supported the contraception coverage rule, without any religious exemptions, were scheduled to host a conference call today at 11:30 am They postponed it after it became clear the White House was set to announce the accommodation today. The letter saysthe religious conscience of women and the separation of church and state support the requirement for coverage without an exemption for religious institutions.

Its clear that the White House was not seeking to appease the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has already rejected the notion of any compromise, and even has said that it wouldnt be satisfied until the requirement was eliminated entirely, even for non-religious employers. Rather, Obama was seeking to satisfy the Catholic Health Association, which runs Catholic hospitals and health care providers around the country. Indeed this morning the White House is circulating the statement of the groups president, Sr. Carol Keehan, saying she is very pleased with how the issue was resolved in a way that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.

The way this played out is similar to how the passage of the original health care reform bill didalthough the Bishops opposed the final bill because they insisted it did not adequately proscribe coverage for abortion, the Catholic Health Association endorsed the final compromise. That compromise required women to purchase a separate rider for abortion coverage. Because the law has not yet been fully implemented, we still dont know whether insurance companies will stop offering the coverage because its too complicated, Hutchinson said.

Planned Parenthoods Cecile Richards said in a statement, In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on womens health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work. While we believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a womans ability to access these critical birth control benefits, said Richards, we will be vigilant in holding the administration and the institutions accountable for a rigorous, fair and consistent implementation of the policy, which does not compromise the essential principles of access to care.

While praising the accommodation as a reaffirmation of the commitment to ensuring contraceptive coverage, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan will be committed to ensuring that the policy is implemented fully and fairly, so that women receive this basic health-care benefit without unnecessary barriers, the group said in a statement.

The Bishops, said OBrien, were prepared for this a long time ago. They will see this accommodation as something they can mark off their shopping list referring to the USCCBs demands from its Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty. They will come back to the political establishment, Republican and Democrat, to begin carving out the rest of what they want, said OBrien. They have now an entree into being able to demand further from the political establishment knowing that the political establishment will bend the knee once, and looks like they will be bending their knee in the future to religious business interests.

UPDATE: Sarah Kliff delves into the catch in who will pay for the coverage:

The catch here is that theres a difference between revenue neutral and free. Byone reportsmeasure, it costs about $21.40 to add birth control, IUDs and other contraceptives to an insurance plan. Those costs may be offset by a reduction in pregnancies. But unless drug manufacturers decide to start handing out free contraceptives, the money to buy them will have to come from somewhere.

Where will it come from, since neither employers nor employees will be paying for these contraceptives? That leaves the insurers, whose revenues come from the premiums that subscribers pay them. Its difficult to see how insurance companies would avoid using premiums to cover the costs of contraceptives. They could, perhaps, use premiums from non-religious employers. Those businesses wouldnt likely object on faith-based grounds, but they probably wouldnt be keen on footing the bill for people who arent on their payrolls.

FURTHER UPDATE: Statement from the USCCB:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obamas announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them, said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.

The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals, he said.

On that latter point, Archbishop Dolan might want to consult Fox News:

As a result of the new federal health care reform law, college students can expect to pay more for insurance due to new required minimum coverage levels for the Vermont State College insurance plan.

According to Wayne Hamilton, dean of administration for Lyndon State College, the federal health care reform law has raised the bar on minimum insurance coverage requirements for students on the colleges health care plan.

Many student health insurance plans currently offered across the country, including Lyndons, do not meet the new mandated minimum coverage levels, said Hamilton, in an email response. Typically, colleges and universities have attempted to maintain affordable insurance by offering plans with basic coverage levels. As the federal law now stands, we may be unable to continue that practice.

Due to the required increase in services, to qualify as basic coverage, students should expect to see a jump in the cost of Lyndons health care plan. Hamilton explained that this jump was inevitable unless amendments are made to the new health care law.

Since being signed in March 2010, the federal health care reform law has been challenged and taken to federal appeals courts in multiple states throughout the country. In 2011, the law was upheld as constitutional in several federal appeals courts; however, because the health care law requires that Americans be insured, this part of the law was deemed unconstitutional in one federal appeals court and has been taken to the US Supreme Court.

As of the fall 2011 semester, 11 percent of the LSC student populace was covered by the VSC insurance plan. The remainder of the student body will not be affected should costs increase, Hamilton explained.

A state-sponsored plan for students is another possibility that may be on the horizon for the VSC, as an alternative to the college health care plan.

Until recently, there were no insurance options for some students who were not covered by their own or a parents plan, said Hamilton. As we move forward, we will evaluate whether it is in the best interest of students to offer coverage under a college plan or to allow students to obtain coverage under a state-sponsored plan.

Paula Chamberlin, administrative assistant of health and counseling, acknowledged that the VSC health insurance plan is expensive, but offers a good, basic college plan through the carrier, Consolidated Health Plans.

Its a great plan for a college student that has this type of a facility on campus because the services we offer here are outstanding. Youre not going to find that on a lot of campuses, said Chamberlin.

Chamberlin explained that there is no deductible that needs to be met and the plan covers a student if they travel overseas. Coverage is for the entire year, not just while a student is on campus. If someone is seen outside of the Brown House; however, they would need to fill out a claim form to receive coverage.

Daniel Haycook, a senior liberal studies major, voiced his concerns about the challenges associated with health care, in general, for young adults.

The cost is ridiculous. Its so much money for crappy insurance. Youre paying so much for insurance you need, said Haycook.

One of the conditions of the Affordable Care Act states that a parents health plan can now carry a child until they are 26.

While I do not have a great deal of personal experience with obtaining insurance since I am still on my parents plan, I appreciate the fact that I am able to stay on my parentlsquo;s plan until I am 26 years old, said Emma Shattuck, a senior global studies and social science major.

According to the governments health care website, Children can join or remain on your plan even if they are: married, not living with you, attending school, not financially dependent on you, or eligible to enroll in their employers plan.

In terms of young adults, the Affordable Care Act is a winner, said social science professor, David Plazek, in an email response. Young adults can now stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26. That, in itself, willdramatically cut the numbers of uninsured as 20-somethings are much more likely than other demographics to go without health insurance.

Vermont also offers state coverage to people who are not on their parents, the VSCs, or their own plan. Green Mountain Care is a plan for Vermont residents and premiums are dependent on income and household size.

Americans, it seems, love Medicare. Elderly beneficiaries give the program the highest approval ratings of any insurance plan in America. According to the Commonwealth Fund, 91 percent rate it as good, very good or excellent. Thats 10 points higher than the grade for private employer-based coverage and 33 percent higher than that for private individual insurance.

Among all US adults, Medicare enjoyed the support of 88 percent in a recent Harris poll. Thats up from 77 percent in 2005. In a recent Marist poll, 80 percent opposed making major cuts. Even more remarkable, that opinion was shared by 70 percent of tea party supporters.

Theres good reason for Medicares popularity. It provides better coverage than other plans. In the Commonwealth Fund poll, only 20 percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported a problem getting access to care. Experiences were decidedly less favorable among those with private coverage. Thirty-seven percent of those with employer-based coverage and 48 percent of those with individual policies reported problems.

All Americans automatically receive Medicare hospital coverage (Part A of the program) when they reach age 65. There are no premiums and no enrollment forms. Its difficult to imagine that anyone would want to opt out of a plan like this. But thats what a small group of people want to do.

Five senior citizens, including former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey, asked the government to disqualify them from Medicare Part A. They acknowledged that they could simply decline to collect the benefits, but they wanted to be removed from the rolls altogether. The government responded that under the law, you can opt out of Medicare Part A only if you also disenroll from Social Security. Unhappy with this outcome, they sued.

Why did they want to lose Medicare hospital insurance? Because, they claim, it would enable them to get better coverage from a private insurer. They say they have private policies that limit hospital benefits for those who are also eligible for Medicare and their coverage would improve if they disenrolled.

To call this argument utter nonsense is to put it mildly. As the polls reflect, Medicare consistently outperforms private coverage. The benefits under their policies might improve if they didnt also get Medicare, but it is highly unlikely the coverage would come close to what Medicare provides.

And if they dont like the way traditional Medicare works, they can choose to receive benefits through one of dozens of private Medicare Advantage plans while remaining within the program.

They also have the option to seek relief in the free market, something they apparently never considered. Nothing prevents private insurers from offering policies that maintain full benefits for those who are also enrolled in Medicare. If enough people wanted such coverage, the market could easily respond.

However, that kind of coverage would almost certainly cost much more. The plaintiffs might be able to afford it. They include a board member for E*Trade and the founder of Rabbit Seminconductor. But most people would be priced out.

But why not let the plaintiffs drop Medicare, if they want? Would they harm anyone but themselves?

The answer is that they could cause a lot of harm, because opt-outs could threaten the integrity of the entire system. Medicare works well because it applies to everyone. Costs can be spread over the whole population, and hospitals are assured that virtually all elderly patients have a source of payment. Allowing opt-outs would make the system more difficult, and potentially more expensive, to administer.

Thats the way it works for most broad government programs. You cant opt out of access to roads or environmental protection. These public efforts and many others can function effectively only if they apply to everyone.

Earlier this week, a federal appeals court ruled against the plaintiffs. (Click here for the full opinion.) We should all be glad that it did. Medicare is a lifesaver for millions, and there is no reason to jeopardize its foundation.

Perhaps the plaintiffs can next try other targets. Would they like the freedom to opt out of national defense?

To check out more Check Up items go to www.philly.com/checkup

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation approved two significant changes to the Livestock Risk Protection-Lamb (LRP-Lamb) plan of insurance that were submitted by the Sheep Venture Company. The US Department of Agricultures Risk Management Agency is in charge of implementing these changes.

The first change allows for sales to occur on a Tuesday when the preceding Monday is a federal holiday. The second change will raise the subsidy rates with the most significant changes occurring on the longer-term endorsements.

Both of these changes are very positive as they should encourage producers to participate in the insurance program, said Margaret Soulen Hinson, president of the American Sheep Industry Association. We hope that producers who own their lambs for 26 or 39 weeks will take a serious look at purchasing price insurance coverage using those endorsements.

Both of these changes are targeted to be implemented on July 1, the beginning of the next endorsement year.

Although Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York has vociferously argued that a national requirement for religiously affiliated institutions to cover birth control in their insurance plans is immoral and unacceptable, some Roman Catholic organizations in his own backyard have for 10 years been grudgingly complying with a state law making them do precisely that.

Enlarge This Image

Seth Wenig/Associated Press

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan

Related

• Rule Shift on Birth Control Is Concession to Obama Allies
  (February 11, 2012)

Follow @NYTMetro

Connect with us on Twitter for breaking news and headlines in New York.

Enlarge This Image

Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times

Some students at St. John’s University in Queens go to Planned Parenthood for contraceptives.

Some New York Catholic institutions — including the Archdiocese of New York, led by Archbishop Dolan, and the Diocese of Brooklyn — chose to self-insure rather than pay for contraception after New York State adopted a requirement in 2002 that any insurance policy with a prescription drug benefit provide coverage for birth control. The requirement has a narrow exemption that applies to policies provided by houses of worship, but not to most other religiously affiliated employers.

But some Catholic institutions now offer health insurance plans that include contraceptive drugs among the services they cover for employees and students, though with caveats.

Manhattan College, which was founded in 1853 by the De La Salle Christian Brothers, a Catholic religious order, has an employee insurance plan that “covers birth control prescriptions, and as with all prescriptions, requires a co-pay,” a spokeswoman, Liz Connolly Bauman, said. She added, however, that “under no circumstances does the college provide students with prescriptions,” nor does its employee plan cover “abortions, drugs that induce abortion, sterilization or services relating to the restoration of fertility.”

Students needing prescriptions obtain them from their personal physicians, she said.

Fordham University, which is run by a lay board of trustees in the tradition of the Jesuit religious order, also has a health plan for its employees and students that covers contraception but does not allow its student health center to prescribe or dispense it except to treat conditions like severe acne or endometriosis; students who seek birth control pills to prevent pregnancy must obtain the prescriptions independently, and the college’s insurance carrier reimburses them.

New York, whose population is an estimated 40 percent Catholic, is one of 28 states that have required insurers to cover contraception. Twenty of those states permit some exemptions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which researches sexual and reproductive health issues.

“It goes from eight states that don’t permit any refusal at all to another eight states that allow a variety of organizations to refuse, including hospitals,” said Elizabeth Nash, the state issues manager for the institute.

The contraceptive law in Connecticut, which took effect in 1999, allows for “religious employers” to be exempted from the requirement — specifying only that in those instances, the insurance policy, its application and its sales brochure must warn that contraceptives are not covered.

“The statute respects the tenets and the teachings of the church,” said Michael C. Culhane, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference.

 One of the most contentious laws was approved in California in 1999; the measure effectively provided an exemption to churches but not to religiously affiliated hospitals, universities or social service organizations. Catholic Charities of Sacramento unsuccessfully challenged the law in court.

 “It was pretty much a useless exemption, because the large employers are not churches,” said Carol Hogan, a spokeswoman for the California Catholic Conference. She said many large Catholic institutions in California, like hospitals, have since elected to sidestep the law by insuring themselves.

“The bishops knew going forward that that was their backup plan,” Ms. Hogan said. “That didn’t negate the fact that it was a violation of religious liberty.”

In New Jersey, which enacted a requirement on contraceptives in 2006, a number of religiously affiliated hospitals have also opted for self-insurance. “Consequently, we are not mandated to provide birth control coverage to participants under the plan,” said Sister Patricia Codey, president of the Catholic HealthCare Partnership of New Jersey.

New York’s statute, which the Catholic Church unsuccessfully fought in court, prompted the Archdiocese of New York and the Diocese of Brooklyn, as well as the Catholic Charities organizations within their territories, to self-insure. They collect premiums from their employees and pay out claims, using insurance carriers like UnitedHealthcare for administration.

But smaller Catholic institutions in New York could not afford to self-insure. Some dropped prescription coverage entirely, according to Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the New York Archdiocese.

Dennis Poust, a spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, said “there was very little we could do” after losing the battle against the New York mandate. “Some Catholic employers are complying with the law under protest,” he said.

St. John’s University, founded in 1870 by the Vincentian order, said Friday that its health insurance policies were in compliance with state law. The university declined to elaborate. St. John’s has a student health center, but students said they did not think it offered contraceptives.

“You can’t get them here,” said Melissa Kraus, 20, a sophomore. “I know people who went through the health center for sexual health reasons. They didn’t get the help they needed, so they went to Planned Parenthood.”

But some students said they thought it was wrong to require a Catholic institution to provide contraceptives against its beliefs. “If you go to a Catholic university, it’s known that you don’t go to a health service and ask for birth control pills or condoms,” said Catherine Farquharson, 19, a journalism major.

Ann Farmer contributed reporting.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – After Nicole Bodzon, 28, a consultant in Conifer, Colorado, paid $1,600 for her pug, Pepe, to have a possibly cancerous tumor removed from his eye, she thought she might benefit from an insurance policy.

But it took her a while to figure out how to maximize the benefits. A year later, Pepe had another tumor removed. Unfortunately, the insurance that Bodzon had since purchased didnt cover pre-existing conditions, so she paid the bills herself.

Bodzon represents the demographic of pet owners on the ground floor of the pet insurance industry. While Americans struggle to afford health insurance coverage and deal with rising health care costs, they are facing the same challenges for their pets. That is setting the stage for explosive growth in the sector.

Nearly one million pets are insured in North America. That is about 1 percent of the US pet population. According to Kristen Lynch, executive director of the North American Pet Health Insurance Association, most plan purchasers describe themselves as affectionate pet owners, many of them female, single or attached, who live in large urban areas. Most pet insurance customers are childless. Empty nesters are also prominent.

Advances in technology have made procedures for pets, such as hip replacements, physical rehabilitation and even chemotherapy, more available. That has pushed up spending for veterinary services, which have more than tripled to an average of $206 per year in 2008, from $60 in 1998.

That has enriched the insurance industry. Revenue for US pet insurance plans was around $302.7 million in 2009. That will more than double to $753 million by 2014, according to estimates compiled by consumer research firm Packaged Facts.

FINDING A PLAN

A pet owner can find a plan to suit a wide category of conditions. Options can be found through companies that sell pet-related products like Kroger or groups like the ASPCA. Groups like the American Pet Insurance Company underwrite smaller insurers that can be found and researched over the Web, like Trupanion.

Veterinary Pet Insurance, a unit of Nationwide Insurance, is the largest US provider of pet insurance, with 485,000 pets covered. Its comprehensive major medical plan even covers pre-existing conditions and hereditary diseases for as much as $37 per month for dogs and $24 per month for cats. Other plans offer high deductible options and policies for foreseeable procedures that vary by species, breed and age.

The value of pet insurance, however, seems to depend more on the owners characteristics. The desire to seek more frequent and attentive care may be the deciding factor in buying an insurance plan to cover a pets bills. Improved efforts from companies to release insurance products offering a greater range of options provides pet owners with more ways to care for their pets long-term health.

In many cases, insurance allows pet owners to engage in more preventive care, showing up at veterinarian offices for any little bump or limp they may notice. This could result in fewer costly procedures if problems are caught early. Most pet insurance companies will require payment upfront, for which pet owners may seek reimbursement following treatment of their pets.

For Bodzon, the equation eventually worked out in her favor. After she settled down with her fiance, with four dogs and four cats between them, they bought pet insurance for each one, for a total monthly premium bill of more than $100.

It is only to protect our finances, so we dont go bankrupt treating our pets. Or worse, we might have to make a difficult decision to put them to sleep for a treatable illness, says Bodzon. We could not afford to pay the deductible if they all became ill at the same time though, we know that.

More information on pet insurance may be found on independent blogs such as petinsuranceguideus.com and dogtime.com. Quotes for individual plans are available on insurer websites like petinsurance.com.

(Editing by Bernadette Baum, Beth Pinsker Gladstone and Richard Chang)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women.

JEFFREY BROWN: Just three weeks ago, the administration announced that religiously affiliated schools, hospitals and other institutions had to cover birth control free of cost. Roman Catholic officials, in particular, charged the mandate would force them to violate their own teachings.

Today, the president said the revised plan would address that objection.

BARACK OBAMA: Under the rule women will still have access to free, preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where they work. So that core principle remains.

But if a womans employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge without co-pays and without hassles.

JEFFREY BROWN: The president of the Catholic Health Association, representing Catholic hospitals, welcomed the decision.

Sister Carol Keehan said in a statement, The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed.

The head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops was more restrained. Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan said, Todays decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction.

Groups that supported the birth control mandate, from Planned Parenthood to the National Organization for Women, backed the compromise.

Louise Melling is deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.

LOUISE MELLING, American Civil Liberties Union: We were pleased that, today, the Obama administration made perfectly clear its longstanding commitment to contraceptive coverage, that it made clear, again, and reaffirmed its commitment to ensure that women across the country, no matter where they work, will be able to have coverage for contraception.

JEFFREY BROWN: For their part, Republican presidential candidates kept up their criticism of the original mandate.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke at a gathering of conservative activists in Washington.

NEWT GINGRICH (R): Our core document says we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. And Barack Obama seeks to cut across those.

And I, frankly, dont care what deal he tries to cut, this is a man who is deeply committed — if he wins reelection, he will wage war on the Catholic Church the morning after hes reelected. We cannot trust him, we should — we know who he really is, and we should make sure the country knows who he really is.

(APPLAUSE)

JEFFREY BROWN: At that same conference, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum accused the administration of overreach. He spoke shortly before the presidents remarks.

RICK SANTORUM (R): This is the kind of coercion that we can expect. Its not about contraception. Its about economic liberty. Its about freedom of speech. Its about freedom of religion. Its about government control of your lives. And its got to stop.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

JEFFREY BROWN: Mitt Romney didnt directly respond to the Obama announcement, but he vowed that his would be a pro-life presidency.

MITT ROMNEY (R): And I will reverse every single Obama regulation that attacks our religious liberty and threatens innocent life in this country.

JEFFREY BROWN: The president today suggested the political uproar should die down now that the policy has changed.

BARACK OBAMA: I understand some folks in Washington may want to treat this as another political wedge issue, but it shouldnt be. I certainly never saw it that way.

This is an issue where people of good will on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions to find a solution that works for everyone. With todays announcement, weve done that.

JEFFREY BROWN: With the president hoping to put the birth control furor behind him, aides will be watching to see if Republicans in Congress push ahead with emergency legislation on the issue.

RAY SUAREZ: This afternoon, I spoke about the presidents decision with Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services. She spoke from the front lawn of the White House, where construction has been under way for more than a year, work that resumed during our interview.

Secretary Sebelius, welcome back to the NewsHour.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Thank you. Nice to be with you, Ray.

RAY SUAREZ: Could the administration have avoided a damaging fight over contraception coverage by announcing this policy in the first place?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, I think what people missed is that the announcement that I made two weeks ago suggested that we were moving ahead with the exemption that had been originally drafted, but, also, we would spend time reaching out to stakeholders, to religious employers who objected to offering this coverage, and we would spend a year finding arrangements that both respected their religious liberty, but made sure at the end of the day that women employees of these institutions, whether she was a university professor or a nurse or a janitor, could make their own determination about very important preventive health care.

RAY SUAREZ: Did you have any idea what was coming? Were you warned by administration colleagues about possible backlash?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, there were certainly people who felt we should broaden the exemption greatly.

I think the president from the outset determined that he was not willing to have millions of American women bear the financial burden of their employer deciding they should not access contraception, a drug that is the most frequently used prescription drug of women 14 to 40, and that often has a serious financial cost, up to $600 if a woman is paying out of pocket for it.

So, on one hand, we wanted to make sure that the preventive health benefits, no co-pays, no co-insurance applied to the whole range of IOM recommendations, so keep the exemption narrow, for churches and church affiliates, but also use the time to look at the 28 states which have mandatory contraceptive coverage, see what arrangements were satisfactory to the various Catholic institutions who right now offer that coverage, universities and hospitals, and deem that to be effective going forward.

When the firestorm broke out, the president basically said, we have got to speed up this process. Lets find a solution respecting religious liberty and guaranteeing that millions of women in America, and really all women in America now, have insurance policies that will have a range of health services needed by them and their families without co-pays and co-insurance to make sure they can access them.

RAY SUAREZ: So, you mentioned the administration spoke to religious institutions beforehand. Have you spoken to them about this latest adjustment, this latest change of policy?

Its reported that President Obama has already spoken to Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, one of the senior leaders of the Catholic Church.

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, I dont — I know he has reached out to Archbishop Dolan. I know he has spoken to Sister Carol Keehan from the Catholic Health Association, who has issued a statement very supportive of this rule that were going to publish in the federal register today.

I know he has spoken to Cecile Richards from Planned Parenthood, who was also very supportive of the rules we put out today. We are going to be — again, as we develop the specifics around this regulation, work with insurance companies, work with institutions.

But I think this does exactly what the president asked us to do, which is make sure that millions of women, regardless of who their employer is, can make their own health decisions, have access to this full range of very important preventive health services, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine, and at the same time respect the religious liberty of their employers who may object to either paying for or directly offering this coverage.

RAY SUAREZ: Secretary, can we talk about mechanics? If youve just taken a new job at a religiously based hospital or university, your employee paperwork is silent on reproductive health care, what happens next?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, typically, if you are a new employee and in an insured plan, the insurance company or the variety of insurance companies are the ones who actually publish the benefit package.

So, in this case, again, the insurance company would be reaching out to employees, making it clear that it is their choice whether to access contraceptive benefits. And what we know, Ray, is that actually this is a no-cost benefit, that the National Business Council on Health, that our actuaries, a variety of people in group plans say having contraception as part of a group insurance plan actually lowers the overall cost, doesnt increase it, because, on balance, preventive services around family planning, avoiding what may be unhealthy pregnancies, avoiding the health consequences of that actually is a cost reducer.

So we have a situation where the insurance companies directly offer this benefit to the women employees, and the religious employer doesnt pay for it, doesnt refer to it, and doesnt have to offer it.

RAY SUAREZ: You say money from the religious institutions doesnt pay for this, but isnt money fungible?

If a Catholic nonprofit is paying for your insurance coverage, isnt it paying for contraception if you are getting the coverage through that same insurer?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, again, Ray, in this case, actuaries have looked at this benefit.

The federal employees health plan, when contraception was added to federal employees benefit, which is the largest employee group in the country, costed this as no cost, free, no cost, because adding contraception and having some employees take advantage of that coverage lowers the overall cost of the health plan.

So we have that in place around the country. We have actuaries that have inserted that, and so were not — this isnt a shell game of passing the costs along. This is a real no-cost option that is, according to the National Business Council on Health, could reduce an insurance plan by about 15 percent. Were not counting on that.

But I think we can say very safely that this doesnt add to the cost of either the employers plan — and we know that women, if they have to purchase this coverage outside of a health plan, could spend up to $600, which is a substantial financial barrier to access a very important health benefit and a benefit used by 99 percent of women across this country at some point in their lives.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, youve transferred the administrative burden to insurance companies. Are insurers ready to pay? Have they signed on?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: We will be doing just that.

But as part of the Affordable Care Act, our department will define the rules under which we offer these benefits. And were confident that this works and that insurers are prepared to step up and do this. Again, this is in place in many states in the country right now, where there is an insurance company providing benefits to employees, and the employer not directly offering those benefits.

RAY SUAREZ: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Madam Secretary, thanks for joining us.

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Great to be with you, Ray.