Yes, your interpretation is correct. Basically, someone still has to pay, since it is written into law that insurance has to cover contraception. Essentially, the gov't has made the case to insurers (and apparently the actuaries agree) that just because the employer is refusing to pay this small amount, it's still a whole lot cheaper for the insurer to just take a hit on it, given that an abortion costs a lot, and a child costs a whole lot for a long time. This entire saga is nonsense, mere proof that anyone can find any legal justification for any ideological position, so long as suspension of disbelief is maintained. If you want a real headscratcher, compare and contrast Hobby Lobby with the recent Wheaton College injunction. Apparently Roberts' avowed "respect for precedent" lasted a mere four days in this case. We live in the judicial version of Bizzarro World.