Starting today (April 1, not a joke) B.C. residents can obtain free birth control at any pharmacy, to include the following:

*Oral hormone pills, commonly known as the pill.

*Subdermal (under-the-skin) injections and implants.

*Copper and hormonal intrauterine devices, also known as IUDs.

*Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill.


Free prescription contraception will also be made available to men, including trans men.

Vasectomies have already been covered for years by the B.C. Medical Services Plan.


At this time you need to present a prescription and your BC health card to access the contraception you seek.

Soon, you can skip the physician visit as pharmacists will be able to write such prescriptions as well as dispensing the birth control.

(Pharmacists are being given more power to prescribe and dispense to somewhat counteract the severe shortage of MDs in many areas of Canada at the moment, including B.C.).


I'm not so sure it's a great idea long term because a major reason birth control has always been dispensed by an MD's Rx only is to ensure that there are no contraindications due to health concerns. For example, GPs who have been the gatekeepers of contraception could ensure their female patients were regularly screened for breast and cervical cancer and any other contraindications to certain types of medications or devices before providing the prescriptions. Pharmacists, of course, won't be doing that. Hopefully, women will themselves take that initiative for their own health (if they can actually find a family physician this side of Armageddon which seems doubtful the way things are going here now).

It's too bad that condoms are not on the free list because they can play a dual role, helping to avoid unwanted pregnancy and also hopefully preventing STDs.


The reason I'm posting on this topic is that too many things get squelched in the name of religion when really we need to operate inside the reality of life, meaning the basics of life shouldn't be hush-hush.

Also, I'm not in favour of one set of people enforcing their beliefs on everybody else. So, if you don't want to take birth control, or "don't believe in it", fine. But who says you get to make the choice for everybody else?

Life in general society should be more like a smorgasbord. Check out all the choices laid out in front of you and choose your preferences.

But also accept that others will make different choices.

Everybody making their own choices (within reason - and reason should be fairly easy to define) seems like the best way to get along together around and about this globe we find ourselves on.


Here's a short article about this new program:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/free-contraception-bc-explained-1.6764286

Excellent news but you are right: condoms should be free too.

No such thing as a free lunch or free birth control. Somebody pays, usually it’s the taxpayer.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No such thing as a free lunch or free birth
> control. Somebody pays, usually it’s the
> taxpayer.

Well, yes. Always the taxpayer. But customers for birth control pay taxes too and that funds various medications and services for others that the birth control person doesn't use so it's kind of a draw.

Rubicon, when a poor woman gets pregnant or an uninsured person gets an STI, do you know who picks up the bill?

You do.

Condoms and pills are far, far less expensive.

To you.

*poof!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2023 09:37PM by Lot's Wife.

You can say that again! (Jk: same as above, nearly)

*Poof poof!

Rubicon, since half of taxpayers are women, no worries on that point.

No such thing as a free pregnancy either.

And how!!!!

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No such thing as a free lunch or free birth
> control. Somebody pays, usually it’s the
> taxpayer.

This lunch comes with added administration and service fees.

Is it your belief that the "administration and service fees" for an abortion are lower than for getting some pills from a pharmacist?

Because such an assertion would be foolish.

As a taxpayer, I'd live.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2023 01:54PM by ookami.

I haven't heard anything about churches protesting this development.

Things work out OK if everybody stays in their own lane.

Multi. Cultural. Society. And multi many different viewpoints as well.

That sounds like a great idea to me. You would still need a physician to put in an IUD.

Jinx, yo.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You would
> still need a physician to put in an IUD.

Yeah. One thing they can't do at the pharmacy counter. :)

“Okay. Hop on up here…wait one moment please. Excuse me [next in line person]. Please stand behind the patient privacy rope.”

I’m confused about the IUD part and the implantable BC in BC.

How does a pharmacy manage that, I wonder. I had a Mirena IUD for many years (highly recommend), and I didn’t need any other contraceptive medication.

Hasn’t Colorado passed a very similar law?

Now this *is* the *right* thing to do. Of course, it doesn't insure white supremacy but neither do the anti-sex, pro-pregnancy policies being pushed by the far right, including white religious evangelicals, in the U.S. As the late conservative radio commentator Paul Harvey might say: British Columbia, lead on!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2023 11:37AM by blindguy.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now this *is* the *right* thing to do. Of course,
> it doesn't insure white supremacy but neither do
> the anti-sex, pro-pregnancy policies being pushed
> by the far right, including white religious
> evangelicals, in the U.S. As the late conservative
> radio commentator Paul Harvey might say: British
> Columbia, lead on!

Automation means the ruling class need fewer workers. That's the real elephant in the room here.

Countries such as Italy and Japan are facing collapse because of these low birth rates.

>> Countries such as Italy and Japan are facing collapse because of these low birth rates.

There is no shortage of people who wish to immigrate to the U.S. or other first world countries. And those people are often willing to take the jobs that native-born workers don't want.

Exactly.

Of course Esteban Warnox doesn't like immigrants. He'd prefer that women be kept in breeding facilities.

So outlaw birth control and keep the hens at work.

If you have choice and social support/ funding for contraception, while adapting the tax system to favour people who have children, providing affordable childcare and actually rewarding childbearing, as they do in France, you can maintain a pretty decent birthrate, which is important. But I suspect that would be impossible to implement in the US ;-)

When you can choose whether/when to have children, you have more children whose birth is the result of a conscious, positive decision - and they're probably brought up in easier, healthier circumstances - so they cause fewer problems.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2023 04:00PM by Soft Machine.

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have choice and social support/ funding for
> contraception, while adapting the tax system to
> favour people who have children, providing
> affordable childcare and actually rewarding
> childbearing, as they do in France, you can
> maintain a pretty decent birthrate, which is
> important.

I don't know, but I would guess that France's relatively robust fertility rate owes more to immigrants than it does to state support. Do you know the detailed data?


--------------
> But I suspect that would be impossible
> to implement in the US ;-)

Yup. Because Americans are so free.


----------------
> When you can choose whether/when to have children,
> you have more children whose birth is the result
> of a conscious, positive decision - and they're
> probably brought up in easier, healthier
> circumstances - so they cause fewer problems.

That is the key insight. Children raised in poverty end up with lower education levels, lower productivity, more crime, and more health problems that the state ultimately must pay for.

I think that IUD and subdermal implants/injections should still be prescribed by a physician before a pharmacist. I just get a little paranoid with the word "implant." Apart from that, this is another reason I envy Canada's healthcare.

And people don't have to have it if they don't want to. It's just having options is all.

Yup. And if I read the article correctly, you have to have a prescription the first time. After that, you can buy them OTC and skip the pharmacist.

That'd make sense.

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yup. And if I read the article correctly, you have
> to have a prescription the first time. After that,
> you can buy them OTC and skip the pharmacist.


To clarify, it's more like skipping the MD (after the first Rx) and going directly to the pharmacist for ongoing refills.

You need the first prescription to be prescribed by a doctor (for obvious reasons - it's still a health care/safety issue).

After that a pharmacist can dispense the same Rx for the same patient without another prescription. But the pharmacist can't change the prescription without consulting with an MD.

The pharmacist also cannot ever initiate a prescription. It must always originate with a doctor.

You can't ever skip the pharmacist - they have to always be the official source of any follow up refills of the same Rx given by the MD. There is no way I can see them ever allowing unqualified pharmacy staff, for instance, handing out refills of any kind of prescription medication or device without a sign-off by an MD or a pharmacist.

It's because of our acute MD shortage that the provincial government is broadening the scope of the pharmacist. For example, pharmacists can now renew a prescription without the patient having to see a doctor first, with some provisos. It has to be a refill, not a new Rx, meaning an MD has initiated the prescription in the first place. It also depends on the type of medication. If it's an ongoing Rx, such as for routine blood pressure meds, the pharmacist can renew it. There may be a limit, though, on how long they can do that for without the patient having to get an updated Rx from an MD.

Re the birth control Rx's, some of the guidelines relate to whether a person is covered by PharmaCare or not (the general provincial coverage for prescription drugs and medical supplies - you have to be a resident). Also, there is paperwork required from the MD and the pharmacist in order to satisfy all legal requirements and to ensure there is coverage.

Guidelines include:

1. Doctors "prescribe a fully covered contraceptive or help patients transition to one."

2. "Patients do not need to register. They simply present their prescription and BC Services Card at a pharmacy."

This means the prescription is a person's authorization from an MD to obtain the medication/device and the BC Services Card assures payment to the pharmacy.

3. For IUDs and implants, prescribers [MDs] and patients will need to book follow-up appointments for insertion. (We mentioned yesterday in posts above that obviously the pharmacist would only be supplying, not installing IUDs or implants - that is the MDs role).

4. No prescription is needed for morning-after pills.


It's fortunate that this is seen as a medical issue where the objective is to prevent unwanted pregnancy and avoid STIs as well as to bypass the clog-up caused by the current shortage of physicians.

Some people may well object on moral grounds but we can't be gatekeepers of every aspect of life for every individual because, obviously, there are different and competing views on every topic.

As for objecting about the cost, we have "free" health care which obviously impacts taxpayers in the end but there are costs in not trying to keep people healthy and in the case of birth control, societal costs in dealing with the fallout of unwanted births.

I haven't heard much feedback here yet on how people feel about this new program. I'd be surprised if there's much hullabaloo about it. We're kind of all happily aboard the "free" medical care here. I'd rather pay a bit more in taxes and $00.00 at the medical office or pharmacy.


ookami said: "I think that IUD and subdermal implants/injections should still be prescribed by a physician before a pharmacist. I just get a little paranoid with the word "implant."

Yes, as above - all birth control pills and devices must initially be prescribed by an MD. The pharmacist cannot initiate the prescription - they can only fill it the first time with an Rx from a doctor. After that initial time, then they can refill (not prescribe) the Rx.

And as I said above too, yeah, no way the pharmacist could insert an IUD for a patient or install the implants. That is still the province of the qualified MDs. It's not covered in a pharmacist's education. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2023 03:32PM by Nightingale.

Okay, good that that rule's in place. The MD shortage, not so much.

And it makes sense as an option for preventative medicine.

And as an American, I envy Canada's healthcare sometimes. Down here, it can feel like gambling; hope that you don't have a health problem your insurance won't cover treatment for. I'd be happy to pay taxes for healthcare for everyone if it meant not playing healthcare roulette.

Of course, my knowledge of healthcare is focused on first aid; better for everyone if I don't have to use it.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And as an American, I envy Canada's healthcare
> sometimes.

Yes, it's amazing.

One of my sisters moved to the States for her husband's job (boo hoo) and she ended up needing a C-section. Took them a long time to pay off that bill and just added to her pain. Up here, there would have been no bill from the hospital or the physicians.

I'm happy every day for our system. And yet still we complain. But the alternative is too scary to contemplate.

Do I believe our taxes would go down if we had to pay directly for our own health care out of pocket? Not for a NY minute.

But yes, it's easy to take it for granted. Too bad, because we should be grateful for it every day of every year forever. Even if we don't need it currently except for discretionary care which we could skip if absolutely necessary it's good to know if we wind up in ER for some dire situation we won't get the added pain of a massive bill in the mail.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2023 06:05PM by Nightingale.

I figure complaints about Canada's healthcare might be a way of letting it be known what needs improving. And it still sounds better than healthcare in the States.

And I figure a system that doesn't take money for healthcare out of taxes takes it out of people's wallets another way. Everybody has health problems and can get in an accident; might as well have everyone pay for it through taxes.

Americans may stereotypically and historically hate taxes, but I'd be good with paying taxes for everyone to have healthcare.

California and Oregon have been allowing pharmacists to prescribe oral contraceptives for years like since 2016

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/california-oregon-allow-birth-control-pills-without-prescription

And under the ACA, it should be free - although some insurers are not compliant

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/07/28/hhs-dol-treasury-issue-guidance-regarding-birth-control-coverage.html

So with all this widely available free birth control, will this reduce the need for abortions.?

Has the number of abortions been reduced in California and Oregon since 2016?

Just asking for a friend.

tumwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So with all this widely available free birth
> control, will this reduce the need for abortions.?

That would be one positive outcome you'd think.

A quick internet scan provides some information although someone--talking to you, [|]--can probably provide better data.

From 2016 to 2020, reported abortions in the US rose by 8%

From 2014 to 2017, reported abortions in CA dropped by 16%.

From 2016 to 2020, reported abortions in OR dropped by 8%.

So as a first approximation, the answer to your question appears to be yes.

Of course the number of reported abortions across the US will fall now that Roe is history because an increasing proportion of abortions will no longer be reported.

Abortions in Oregon have been declining for 30 years. The lowest number was 2020 (Covid) with a mild uptick in 2021.

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/BIRTHDEATHCERTIFICATES/VITALSTATISTICS/Pages/Induced-Abortion-Data.aspx

Preliminary data shows an increase in 2022 some of which is attributed to the effects of Dobbs

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/10/31/oregon-abortions-increase-18-percent-after-roe-v-wade/

"The number of abortions per month in Oregon went up by 18% in August, after the Supreme Court’s June decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

In the Pacific Northwest, the greatest changes occurred between April and August, when a near total ban on abortion went into effect in Idaho. That month, there was a 48% decrease in abortions in Idaho, amounting to 70 fewer abortions. In Oregon over that time period there was an 18% increase in abortions, or 150 more. In Washington, there was a 5% increase in abortions, or 90 more.

Alyssa Colwill, the director of family planning clinical services at Oregon Health & Sciences University says anecdotally, the majority of patients traveling for abortion are coming from Idaho, but she’s also seen patients from Texas, Wisconsin and other states."

Thank you!

Regarding the need for birth control, free or otherwise, I gave at the office...