|
Basic state employee health plans also generally don't cover those drugs, but more expensive premium plans might, said Dick Cauchi, who tracks health benefits at the National Conference of State Legislatures. Lisa Soronen, National School Boards Association senior staff attorney, also said she had never heard of a similar case or an example of a union negotiating coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs. "If you are getting down to what drugs are covered, you are really getting in the weeds," she said, explaining most negotiations are over premiums and co-payments. Board and union negotiators reached a deal in 2002 to cover six tablets per month for erectile dysfunction drugs in health plans that insure 10,000 employees, dependents and retirees. They quickly became popular. By 2004, the number of claimants receiving prescriptions skyrocketed to more than 1,000 per year, costing the district $207,000. During negotiations in 2005, the board proposed eliminating the benefit and an arbitrator adopted the plan. The union in 2008 filed a sex discrimination complaint with the state. In June, the Labor and Industry Review Commission ruled the union couldn't pursue the case without identifying employees who have been injured by the policy and the complaint was filed after the statute of limitations expired. The union is asking a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge to overturn that decision and declare the policy violates the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. A ruling isn't expected for months. Viagra is usually on the other side in discrimination cases. In recent years, several lawsuits have claimed that employer health plans discriminate against women when they cover Viagra but not contraceptives or infertility treatment. But the Milwaukee union says males are treated unfairly here. In one brief, its lawyers argued that vaginal cream, anti-bacterial medicine and estrogen replacement medication for female sexual dysfunction are covered. Other options such as penile pumps and implants included in the plans "are far less desirable than oral medication," the filing said. District spokesman Philip Harris said school officials won't comment because "we just want to leave it alone." But Miriam Horwitz, an attorney representing the board, argued in court filings the drugs weren't necessary to treat life-threatening disease or have children.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor