START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
1,256,313 people care about Women's Rights

Woman Battles Insurance Companies to Get Her IUD Removed

Woman Battles Insurance Companies to Get Her IUD Removed


Over at NARAL’s Blog for Choice, blogger Thomas tells the story of a woman living in West Seattle, Washington, who found herself entangled with insurance companies over the right to become pregnant.  This woman was a busy working mother who had an intrauterine device (IUD) implanted after the birth of her child.  Her husband’s insurance company, Regence BlueShield, covered the insertion of the IUD, but when she decided that she wanted to get pregnant again, they refused to remove the device, saying that it was not “medically necessary.”

It turns out this woman wasn’t alone.  After repeated denials and lots of paperwork from Regence, she filed a complaint with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner.  When the state investigated, they discovered that this women had filed the only complaint.  However, 984 women had their claims illegally denied, and presumably paid the removal fee (which runs around several hundred dollars) out of pocket.

None of the women spoke up, perhaps because they were so busy.  As the West Seattle woman explained, most women who have IUDs are working mothers with at least one child, so “it’s easier to just pay it, so you can move on to something more important — like sleep.”

Washington has a contraceptive equity law, so Regence’s actions were blatantly illegal.  The state told Regence to reimburse the women who had filed claims, and to drive the message home, fined the company $100,000 and required it to pay the women eight percent interest on the denied claims.

As Thomas points out, Washington is one of 28 states that requires insurance companies to cover prescription contraceptives in the same way that they would cover any other medication (although 20 of these states have religious exemptions, which is a debate for another day).  But there are 22 states where it would be legal to deny this woman her IUD removal, and where insurance companies wouldn’t have to pay for its insertion in the first place.

This, of course, won’t be a problem anymore in a year, when insurance companies across the country will be required under the new health-care reform law to provide birth control without a deductible.  But until then, women could be wading through paperwork, or simply paying for services out of pocket, because of insurance companies’ unwillingness to treat contraceptives like other medications.

Although the woman from West Seattle certainly wasn’t given appropriate financial compensation, at least she achieved her original desire: she’s now the mother of a 6-month-old baby girl.  But just think about it.  She was the only woman – out of nearly 1,000 – who had time to successfully complain.

Related Stories:

GOP Rep Says Free Birth Control Will End American Civilization

Contraception Approved – But It’s Not About Birth Control

HHS Adopts Recommendations for Birth Control Coverage

Read more: , , , , ,

Photo from kate* via flickr.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
1:04AM PDT on Jul 13, 2015

This article is actually remarkable one it helps many new users that desire to read always the best stuff. Home insurance Colorado

4:30AM PDT on Jun 17, 2015

Majority of the women that have IUDs operate mothers with one child, so it’s preferable to just pay it, it's an informative blog for women. car insurance

11:12PM PST on Jan 19, 2014

It’s amazing in support of me to truly have a blog site, which will be valuable meant for my knowledge. Thanks admin.

homeowners insurance maryland

4:27PM PDT on Sep 11, 2011

yes, private insurance companies are our friends -- we pay and pay each month for coverage, and then when you need it, you are given excuses. MEDICARE FOR ALL like other civilized countries! Health care should NEVER have been the business of business -- the goals are antithetical. Health care is for CARE and business is for the BOTTOM LINE, which means denying that care. So simple, yet we were denied that in the health care debate.

9:04PM PDT on Sep 3, 2011

Sheesh- they aren't preventing her from removing the IUD, they just don't want to pay to have it removed...

11:03AM PDT on Aug 26, 2011

Medicare for all.

6:09PM PDT on Aug 25, 2011

Dawn: If they didn't want to pay for the removal,then why did they pay for the insertion?

Probably because as long as it stays in, they don't have to pay for prenatal or baby care.

5:51PM PDT on Aug 25, 2011


3:01PM PDT on Aug 23, 2011

i think i'm more concerned with the fact that this woman was the first to complain out of almost 1,000 women! why did no one else stand up for themselves?!

6:30PM PDT on Aug 22, 2011

The IUD is supposed to be removable,that is,not permanent.But I guess the insurance companies want to make it permanent.If they didn't want to pay for the removal,then why did they pay for the insertion?

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

Don't know why they were "impeded", but it seems it may have turned out better for this batch. It is…

It is naive to think there is a single solution or that it can be based on an economic saving. City centers…

ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.