Yes, but if the condition is covered then the condition is covered. We should sympathise, but also we should ask why a doctor's note was not supplied if she really was denied the OC under the university plan. Georgetown's "override" policy is fairly simple: if a doctor's note confirms a medical condition being treated by the OC, it is covered under the plan. PCOS would be an absolute slam-dunk. Is a doctor's note difficult to get? Hardly: if a physician prescribes the OC for a medical condition then you should be able to source a confirmatory note with a simple phone call.

I'd also suggest that those with a diagnosis of PCOS would not be prescribed the OC without regular care and screening, so it seems odd that a physician wouldn't intervene if her patient stopped taking a medication because the insurer incorrectly denied coverage. I'd also observe that medicine has progressed a lot since the days when I performed an "appendectomy" that turned out to be an orange-sized ovarian teratoma containing hair and teeth. These days oophorectomy is more likely to be planned, usually to relieve very bad PCOS symptoms or other associated factors like tumor. There's ultrasound and keyhole surgery to help spot these things in advance, all completely covered by insurance, so it's shocking if somebody was denied care and almost died. Of course we should sympathize, but before insisting that all this was caused by a contraceptive policy that did not even apply to this student, we should suspend judgment until more facts are in.

As for endometriosis: the OC cannot cure it but it has been a popular treatment for symptoms along with normal pain relievers and more recent hormonal treatments. If insurers want to deny coverage I guess they can point to equivocal studies, plus there are some recent ones suggesting an association between the OC and development of endometriosis in the first place. However, if the insurer did refuse the OC they would have struggled to refuse the many alternative treatments including safer hormonal options available these days. I have to ask, where were the physicians while all this was purportedly going on?

As you asked earlier, the elephant in the room is that employers and universities are being dragged into healthcare funding at all. My grandmother, who was a fierce proponent of women being strong and making a difference in this tough old world, would have been aghast that women must behave like serfs, relying on patriarchal figures like bosses or preachers for healthcare because other options have been driven out of reach. She would say that the system has failed and she would look for the motivation, meaning the pockets that are bulging because they got away with this. The risk of the current approach is that Rube Goldberg legislation is being added to prop up a system that everybody agrees is dysfunctional.

If the Jesuits do decide to make a stand, lets not forget that the university is perfectly entitled to drop its plan which will make the issue go away completely. Instead students could be required to provide evidence of adequate coverage, which is a lot more onerous than getting a doctor's note I would say. Most likely it will also increase the price for everybody and substantially for some, particularly those whose parents have no insurance, and people with pre-existing conditions would be disadvantaged, but presumably everybody will celebrate the wonderful result.