The Beginning of a Walk-Back on the Contraception Mandate?

The White House seems to be taken aback by the negative reaction to its refusal to accommodate in the contraception mandate.  As both Anthony Picarello (USCCB general counsel) and my wife said today, when Chris Matthews calls President Obama way off base, the President's in trouble.  According to one  report, administration officials interested in a compromise are thinking of a broader exemption but with a requirement, similar to the Hawaii statute that Melissa Rogers described last fall, that

religious employers that decline to cover contraceptives must provide written notification to enrollees disclosing that fact and describing alternate ways for enrollees to access coverage for contraceptive services. Hawaii law also requires health insurers to allow enrollees in a health plan of an objecting religious employer to purchase coverage of contraceptive services directly and to do so at a cost that does not exceed ‘the enrollee’s pro rata share of the price the group purchaser would have paid for such coverage had the group plan not invoked a religious exemption.

It would be nice if insurers were called on to take up the slack here, instead of objecting religious organizations.  As to "describing alternate ways" of access ... As I blogged before, the idea of requiring religious objectors to inform their employees about alternative access generally does not assuage conscientious objections: moral theology treats referring someone to the nearest abortion clinic as impermissible cooperation with evil.  However, if a mention of alternatives were required, I wonder if it would be palatable if the alternative in question were the insurance company.  Suppose what Catholic Charities must say upfront to employees is, "We do not cover premiums for contraception; for questions, see the insurance company directly at [phone number]."  Would that be an impermissible referral, or would the generality of the language, and the fact that the insurer might be an obvious contact anyway, mean it's not impermissible?  I'd be interested in others' answers to that question, because models like this may receive serious discussion soon.