This Amazing Chart Shows How Much Women Have Saved Under Obamacare

Out-of-pocket costs for contraception plummeted.

Birth Control Pills


Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The Affordable Care Act has led to a massive drop in the amount of money women have to spend on birth control. The law required that plans sold to individuals and insurance offered by employers had to cover a range of contraception options at zero out-of-pocket cost for the subscriber. The Obama administration offered limited exemptions for religious employers, but most workplaces had to include contraception coverage in their insurance offerings. Now, the Kaiser Family Foundation has shown exactly what that policy has meant for women. 

In 2012, the year before the law went into full effect, 22.7 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 who got insurance through work paid for at least part of their birth control—right around the same level it had been for a decade. In 2013, that amount instantly dropped to 7 percent, and by 2016, it was all the way down to 2.7 percent. Here’s how it shook out for people who worked for a large employer, via the Kaiser Family Foundation:


A 2015 study published in Health Affairs estimated that women saved $1.4 billion on co-payments for birth control pills during the first year of the ACA’s implementation, an average of $255 per user. And it’s popular, with 68 percent of people supporting the contraception requirement in a poll last year—even a majority of Republicans in favor. 

The Kaiser Family Foundation’s analysis only runs through 2016, and there was, of course, a major event in November of that year that shifted federal policy. Last year, the Trump administration vastly broadened the definition of which employers can qualify for an exemption, allowing pretty much any employer to cite a moral or religious belief to duck covering contraception—though legal challenges have kept the implementation of that decision on hold


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend