Which alternatives to the contraceptive mandate did the Supreme Court suggest in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.?

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the government failed to demonstrate that the contraceptive mandate was the "least restrictive means" of furthering its compelling interest in providing women with access to contraception. The Court suggested that the government could achieve its goal through less burdensome alternatives, specifically:1

• Direct Government Funding: The government could assume the cost of providing the four contested contraceptive methods to women whose employers have religious objections to covering them.1
• Expanding Existing Accommodations: The government could implement the same accommodation it had already established for religious nonprofit organizations. Under this system, an objecting employer self-certifies its religious opposition, and the insurance company is then required to provide the contraceptive coverage directly to the employees at no additional cost to the employer.1

The Court concluded that these alternatives would serve the government's stated interests equally well without infringing upon the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs.1