Senate Dems Want Expanded Contraception Insurance Coverage

This feature courtesy of MIRS, a Lansing-based news and information service.

This week, Sens. Mary Cavanagh (D-Redford Twp.) and Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor) introduced the “Freedom to Plan Act,” a bill package that would require both Medicaid and private insurers to provide coverage for oral hormonal and emergency contraception – with or without a prescription.

If passed, Michigan would join six other states to enact similar legislation requiring covered contraception.

The two Senate Democrats said they believe expanding coverage for contraception will break down financial barriers to over-the-counter (OTC) contraceptives, providing Michigan residents with the autonomy to make their own medical decisions.

“People should have access to every tool to plan and make informed decisions about their reproductive health,” Irwin said. “By expanding access to basic health care such as birth control, we can ensure everyone in our state has the ability to determine what their future looks like.”

Currently, federal law requires Medicaid and most private health insurance plans to cover Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive methods with a prescription.

However, there is no federal requirement for covering non-prescription contraception.

SB 973 and SB 974 , which were introduced on July 31, would expand that requirement to also include oral hormonal contraception and oral emergency contraception, regardless of if they’re prescribed or over the counter, starting Jan. 1, 2026.

The bills describe contraception as a “drug, device or other product, including but not limited to a hormonal drug, whether administered orally, transdermally or intravaginally, that is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to prevent pregnancy,” which the sponsors said leaves room for additional advances in over-the-counter oral hormonal contraceptives pending FDA approval.

Emergency contraception is defined as a drug approved by the FDA to “prevent pregnancy following unprotected sexual intercourse or a known or suspected contraceptive failure.”

Cavanagh’s SB 973 amends the state insurance code, while Irwin’s SB 974 amends the social welfare act.

The bill was initially supported by Planned Parenthood of Michigan, Michigan Voices, the ACLU of Michigan, the Michigan Council for Maternal and Child Health, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fellow Advocacy Co-Chair, Dr. Halley Crissman.

Cavanagh said that as the youngest woman serving in the Senate, at 33-years-old, and someone who’s still planning a family, “this legislation is not just about health. It’s about ensuring every Michigander has the freedom to make choices about their bodies and their lives.

“By removing unnecessary barriers to contraception that disproportionately impact low-income individuals and marginalized communities, we can build a more equitable care system that empowers and supports the holistic well-being of all Michiganders,” she said.

Cavanagh highlighted the use of oral hormonal contraception to also treat other women’s health concerns, including premenstrual syndrome (PMS), pain from endometriosis, and migraines, along with reducing the risk of gynecologic disorders like endometrial and ovarian cancer.

The legislation has been referred to the Senate Health Policy Committee, where it awaits further action.

Expanded Standard Created For Expert Witnesses In Medical Malpractice Cases

The Michigan Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision expanded the universe of medical experts who could testify in a given medical malpractice case when it overturned portions of an 18-year, precedent-setting case.

The panel’s four Democratic-nominated justices ruled that an expert witness doesn’t need to have matching “subspecialities” as the medical professional accused of malpractice, only matching specialties.

The opinion written by Justice Elizabeth Welch overturns a portion of a 2006 ruling in Woodard v. Custer.

It reads that the Legislature could have written the law to mean that medical experts need to be of the same “subspecialty,” but it did not. For that reason, the experts that were to be used in Stokes v. Swofford and Selliman v. Colton satisfied the law.

“Accordingly, this Court should recognize that ‘specialties’ and ‘subspecialties’ are linguistically distinctive and separate terms, and the addition of a prefix changes the meaning of the original term,” Welch noted. “… Both Stokes and Selliman demonstrate how difficult it is to apply Woodard in practice.”

The majority held “specialist” and “specialties” in the statute are those recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Board of Physician Specialties or other similar organizations and that trial courts must ensure that experts in medical malpractice lawsuits have a matching specialty to the alleged at-fault medical professional.

“The statute does not require matching of subspecialties,” Welch added.

Republican-nominated Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, joined by fellow Republican Justices Brian Zahra and David Viviano, held Woodard correctly defined “specialty” to include “subspecialty.”

Clement dismissed the majority’s assumption of what the Legislature understood, noting that it’s “quite possible – if not likely – that the Legislature, years after it mentioned ‘subspecialty’ in one passage of the Public Health Code, did not deliberately choose to use ‘specialty’ to exclude ‘subspeciality’” when it created the relevant statute.

Standard of care is measured by how other physicians in a field would act providing the same treatment to a patient.

The plaintiff in Stokes died after attempts to relieve her brain pressure following the implant of a shunt catheter which led to brain swelling.

The trial court adopted Woodard’s interpretation of the statute to conclude that an expert diagnostic radiologist couldn’t testify on behalf of the plaintiff about whether her doctor provided the appropriate standard of care. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding neuroradiology was a subspecialty of diagnostic radiology.

The plaintiff in Selliman alleged his doctor was negligent in rhinoplasty procedures to repair his nose. The appeals court drew a hard line dividing specialties, holding the plaintiff’s expert, who had the same certification as the alleged malpractice doctor, didn’t fit the statute because the procedure was done for cosmetic reasons and the plaintiff’s expert spent only 10 percent of his time performing rhinoplasties for cosmetic reasons.

Both cases return to the Oakland County trial court for further proceedings.