Healthcare Policy Issue: Federally Mandated Insurance Coverage for Infertility Treatment by https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d In 2002, 2 million American women of reproductive age were infertile. Infertility is also common among men. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducts surveillance and research on the causes of infertility, monitors the safety and efficacy of infertility treatment, and sponsors national prevention programs. A CDC-wide working group found that, despite this effort, considerable gaps and opportunities exist in surveillance, research, communication, and program and policy development. We intend to consult with other federal agencies, professional and consumer organizations, the scientific community, the health care community, industry, and other stakeholders, and participate in the development of a national public health plan for the prevention, detection, and management of infertility. Approximately 15% of couples in the United States (U.S.) suffer from infertility. Existing infertility treatments and alternate paths to parenthood, such as adoption, are available but financially inaccessible and require self-payment. Although organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and World Health Organization (WHO) classify infertility as a disease, the U.S. has not federally mandated insurance coverage for infertility. Currently, only 15 states require insurance companies to offer some type of fertility benefit and these requirements vary across states. This padlet wall both displays and discusses the need to federally mandate insurance coverage for infertility in the U.S. Infertility not only causes devastating outcomes for individual families but affects nearly all demographics across the world. However, national legislation on infertility coverage continues to fail the many couples who suffer from this condition. This padlet also includes how we can apply what we have learned about policy-making and laws from this class so to support this policy movement. As aspiring healthcare leaders, we have an ethical duty not only to address healthcare quality and access for all but also to be at the frontlines of policy and to advocate for federal insurance coverage for clients who desperately want to realize their dream of conceiving a child. The experiences of those being dismissed, unheard, and unrecognized fueled my passion to do my padlet wall on this issue, in hopes that it would generate awareness of infertility, its effects, and the need to advocate for changes in laws and policies that marginalize those who are suffering from the disease. en-us 2021-10-26 22:01:22 UTC 2024-10-14 12:10:22 UTC hello@padlet.com INTRODUCTION: Definition of Infertility by WHO (World Health Organization) sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846391131
The World Health Organization defines infertility as a disease, which means infertility is conferred as a health issue. Infertility is a disease that affects the reproductive system, usually, couples who suffer from infertility issues have failed to achieve his, her, their, etc. pregnancy after 1 year of unprotected intercourse. The issue of infertility affects about 10-15% of heterosexual couples (Weigel, et al., 2020), so this issue clearly exists. 

This disease affects the quality of life and can cause anxiety and depression because the failure to obtain a pregnancy can cause a strain in a relationship or just feelings of worthlessness. However, the cost of infertility treatments coupled with the lack of insurance coverage plays a major role in health inequity amongst minority populations (Insogna &Ginsburg, 2018).

 The lack of coverage for this condition as is evident with the lack of policies to help cover the charges implies that this disease lacks importance. Most of the time, fertility services aren’t covered by public or private insurers. Only about 16 states cover infertility services, only 6 of those states provide mandated treatments. Those states are Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island (Insogna & Ginsburg, 2018). 

]]> 2021-10-26 22:13:26 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846391131 PROBLEM STATEMENT sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846392504
How can healthcare be used to address and improve the problem of infertility faced by all types of families and couples, regardless of their socioeconomic, political, ethnic, religious, and cultural background?

 In 2020, UCLA Health reported that approximately 15% of couples will struggle with infertility (UCLA Health, 2020). According to MedlinePlus (n.d.), infertility is the inability to become pregnant after 12 months of trying to conceive and includes miscarriages and stillbirths. Despite the WHO and the AMA classifying infertility as a disease, there is no federally mandated insurance coverage for infertility treatment (Insogna & Ginsburg, 2018; Strauss, 2018). Infertility can be treated with medicine, surgery, intrauterine insemination, or assisted reproductive technology. Often, medication and intrauterine insemination are used at the same time. Doctors recommend specific treatments for infertility on the basis of The factors contributing to infertility.

For many couples around the world, having a baby is a critical step to building a family. For both the person trying to conceive and their partner, a diagnosis of infertility can lead to many challenges such as anger, depression, sexual dysfunction, divorce, and social isolation (Deka & Sarma, 2010). Given the prevalence of infertility, its underrecognized status as a disease that warrants coverage, and the high costs people pay to exercise their right to conceive a child, federally mandated insurance policies are a vital but missing component of our nation’s healthcare landscape. ]]> 2021-10-26 22:14:21 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846392504 STAKEHOLDERS: THE SOCIAL PROBLEM sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846399485
In the U.S., at least one in eight couples will experience infertility (RESOLVE, 2019). Among married couples, about 7% of women and 16% of men, ranging in age from 15-44, are classified as infertile (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2016; Chandra et al, 2013). Infertility is typically viewed as a female condition, but in approximately 40% to 50% of infertility cases, the male is the factor leading to infertility (Kumar & Singh, 2015). Infertility can be treated with medication, surgery, intrauterine insemination (IUI), or assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF). These fertility treatments involve extracting eggs and embryos from a female and either combining them with sperm in a laboratory and reinserting into the body, or donating them to another woman (CDC, 2019). Each treatment comes with its own costs, risks, and rates of success.  

 


]]> 2021-10-26 22:19:31 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846399485 STAKEHOLDERS: DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ON MARGINALIZED POPULATIONS sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846403088
The medical definition of infertility is the “inability of couples to conceive after at least 1 year of having sex without using birth control methods” (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2019, para 1). This definition limits those capable of experiencing infertility to heterosexual couples that have intercourse. It assumes that only men and women try to have children, and also focuses on women’s bodies instead of men’s. However, men and same sex-couples need support with infertility, too. The current definition of infertility fails to address the inclusiveness needed to ensure all populations can receive equal and adequate access to support and care for infertility and leaves room for interpretation of who does and does not deserve access to care. 

 Much of the research, advocacy, and support for infertility focuses on white, heterosexual women (Shreffler et al., 2017). Although African American, Chinese, and Latine couples have higher rates of infertility than white couples, they are less likely to seek treatment (Inhorn & Patrizio, 2018; Insogna & Ginsbury, 2019). According to a study published in Health Psychology, “heterosexual white women are twice as likely as racial or sexual minority women to obtain medical help to get pregnant” (Blanchfield & Patterson, 2015, p. 575). The study further explains that a cause for this lack of pursuing treatment is a lack of health insurance. Moreover, as of 2018, Blacks are still 1.5 times as likely as whites to be uninsured (Ariga et al., 2020). 

 Blanchfield and Patterson (2015) found that in studies conducted in 2002 and again from 2006 to 2010, 13% of white heterosexual women received assisted reproductive medical support, while only 7% of minority heterosexual women and white sexual minority women received support. Furthermore, only 1% of women who identified as both racial and sexual minorities were found to have received such support. Men were not included in the study, speaking to the gap in the literature on infertility in men. Feinberg and colleagues (2005) found that when African Americans had access to healthcare through partial insurance, there was a 400% increase in their utilization of ARTs. Yet even with access, minority patients had poorer health outcomes than white patients, including higher spontaneous abortions, lower clinical pregnancy rates, and lower live births (Insogna & Ginsbury, 2019). Thus, even with lower successful outcome rates, minorities clearly benefit from having insurance to cover infertility treatments. ]]> 2021-10-26 22:21:58 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846403088 OPTIONS: BARRIERS TO ACCESSING TREATMENT sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846406491
In addition to its widespread impact and disproportionate effects on marginalized groups, infertility warrants insurance coverage. However, inconsistent nationwide coverage policies have created major cost burdens for individuals. In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated that every person has a right to start a family, and in 2015, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) Ethics Committee stated that “reproduction is a fundamental interest and human right” (2015). However, U.S. legislation has failed to recognize that infertility is a disease that denies people the basic human right of conceiving a child. Additionally, while the WHO and AMA classify infertility as a disease, many insurance companies in the U.S. do not cover infertility and erroneously view infertility treatment as experimental medicine (Strauss, 2018). This label neglects the substantial body of research highlighting that procedures to address infertility, such as egg freezing, are no longer experimental and ARTs, such as IVF, have increased in success with as many as 8 million babies being born through IVF in 2018 (Dunne & Roberts, 2016; Strauss, 2018). Without federal assistance, individual states bear the responsibility to determine how to regulate infertility coverage (American Society  of Reproductive Medicine [ASRM] Ethics Committee, 2015, para 5; National Conference of State Legislature [NCSL], 2019; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). Currently, 19 states have infertility coverage laws that require insurance companies to either cover or offer infertility treatments as part of the policy (RESOLVE, 2020; NCSL, 2019) (see Table 1). Of those 19 states, 13 have comprehensive coverage for costs associated with IVF, and 10 have fertility preservation laws (RESOLVE, 2020) (see Table 1). However, coverage may not exist for other ART treatments and associated medications (Insogna & Ginsburg, 2018). ]]> 2021-10-26 22:24:26 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846406491 OPTIONS: BARRIERS TO ACCESSING TREATMENT sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846409650
 Four states (Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico) offer one Medicaid plan to diagnose infertility, but do not mandate any level of coverage for infertility treatment (Weigel et al., 2020.) Of the states listed in Table 1, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York offer this same benefit, but New York is the only state that requires Medicaid coverage to treat infertility (Weigel et al., 2020). Thus, most individuals with government insurance (state or federal) have no coverage for infertility treatments and are given no choice but to personally cover all fees associated with any ARTs (RESOLVE, 2018). White, McQuillan, and Greil (2006) found that many physicians may hold biases about who should and should not receive infertility treatment. Without federally mandated infertility coverage, states and providers can personally define infertility and determine who receives treatment (ASRM Ethics Committee, 2015). Giving physicians power to determine who receives treatments creates an indirect and subtle--but deeply harmful--form of ethnic cleansing. Consequently, the medical field risks prioritizing communities with privilege in the provision of access. This system enables racism, ableism, transphobia, and many other forms of oppression to influence decisions of who can conceive. The subjective selection of those receiving infertility treatment promotes privilege and creates a system in which those from specific racial, ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic communities are denied access to insurance coverage and medical procedures that are critical to being able to have a baby.

 Without consistent coverage, the costs of treatment far exceed what many couples can afford. In 2018, the average cost for infertility treatments, such as IVF, was $12,000, but some couples paid over $22,000 for one IVF cycle, depending on the types of medication needed to prepare for the treatment (Leonhardt, 2019; Strauss, 2018). In engaging in IVF, 71% of women who completed an IVF cycle were not covered by insurance (Leonhardt, 2019). Many couples spend the money fully aware that an unsuccessful fertilization could mean a loss of $12,000 and potential cost an additional $12,000 to try again. According to a 2017 article by Robert Kiltzman, the cost of a successful delivery from IVF in California was $112,799, and the cost of other paths to parenthood, such as adoption, can cost around $30,000 minimum. These are out-of-pocket funds that the average person likely does not have. The cost to treat infertility, coupled with a lack of insurance coverage for this disease, leaves many couples either struggling to fund treatment or giving up on having a baby altogether. ]]> 2021-10-26 22:26:45 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846409650 STAKEHOLDERS: THE SOCIAL POLICY RESPONSE sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846417356
Although there are states that do require some type of infertility insurance coverage, the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act exempts companies who engage in self-insurance (i.e., the companies pay medical claims themselves) from having to comply with state mandates (RESOLVE, 2018). This means that even in the states that do have some form of a mandate, people may still struggle to have their infertility treatments covered. Some companies and providers use the medical definition of infertility to justify their inadequate infertility policies. In her interview with physicians and top executives from both United Healthcare and Aetna, Fairyington (2015) highlighted that policies do not provide a pregnancy benefit but a benefit to those who meet the medical, evidence-based definition of infertility. 

 It is the biased interpretation of how infertility should be defined that disenfranchises many groups. Some state policies deny fertility support to parties that cannot necessarily meet the guidelines for infertility because they may not have engaged in 12 months of heterosexual intercourse without success in forming an embryo (including single men, single women, and LGBTQIA+ couples) (ASRM Ethics Committee, 2015; Weigel et al., 2020). For benefits, such as fertility preservation, an individual would have to have suffered from an iatrogenic condition--that is, infertility that resulted directly or indirectly from a healthcare provider performing a medical procedure (i.e. surgery) or treating a medical condition (i.e. use of radiation) (Campo-Engelstein, 2010). While it would seem that this would apply to transgender individuals receiving medical care, gender-affirming medical and surgical treatments are not considered iatrogenic conditions (Weigel et al., 2020). Additionally, some insurance companies exclude coverage for all men, both single and married, as women are traditionally viewed as the main factor in infertility (Dupree, 2016). 

]]> 2021-10-26 22:32:30 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846417356 STAKEHOLDERS: A CASE FOR FEDERALLY MANDATED INSURANCE sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846420144
Federally mandated insurance is essential to ensuring that infertility is recognized and treated as a disease. This mandate would open the door for social workers to advocate for marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ couples and men, ensuring that insurance policies do not exclude certain groups on the basis of society’s definition of who can or cannot experience infertility. Two previously introduced pieces of legislation would require all insurance companies to mandate coverage for infertility treatments: the Family Building Act (2009, 2007, 2003, 2005) and the Medicare Infertility Coverage Act (2005, 2003). The Family Building Act of 2009 stipulated that all healthcare plans should offer infertility treatment benefits (Family Building Act, 2009; Holtzman, 2013). The Medicare Infertility Coverage Act of 2005 was an amendment to Medicare aimed at covering infertility treatments for those entitled to the benefit because of a disability (Holtzman, 2013; US Government Publishing Office, 2005). 

 Two other major pieces of legislation, the Patient Protection Act and the Affordable Care Act, expanded health care, but neither addressed the issue of coverage for infertility treatments. The idea of infertility as a disability was introduced in 1998 with Bragdon v. Abbott, during which  the Supreme Court ruled that reproduction was “a major life activity” that should be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Hawkins, 2007, p. 209). However, the ruling only ensured employers could not discriminate against an individual based on infertility and did not expand the mandate to cover infertility in company insurance plans. Consequently, insurance companies could still promote ableism by denying coverage to those physically unable to conceive through heterosexual intercourse. While the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Acts expanded health care, these laws did not address the issue of coverage for infertility treatments (Norris, 2020). Unfortunately, both the Family Building Act and the Medicare Infertility Coverage Act never made it to Congress for a vote. 

 Opponents of federally mandated infertility treatment coverage have argued that covering infertility treatments would come at a high cost. Yet, data from Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island indicate that state-mandated infertility coverage does not significantly raise premiums. In the 30 years, these states have been mandating infertility coverage, the cost is less than 1% of total premium costs (EMD Serono 2019; Wigel et al., 2020). Another argument is the social cost of infertility treatments. Those able to conceive through intercourse are reluctant to bear the costs of treatment for those who experience infertility (Hawkins, 2007). However, the very nature of health insurance demands that individual clients pay for treatments that they themselves may never receive. Though an individual client may never struggle with infertility, or for that matter, heart disease or cancer, insurance companies have always collected payments from these clients to ensure a large pool of resources. The barrier to federally mandated coverage encourages a system where groups are marginalized and systematically robbed of the right to become parents. However, until legislation is in place, many couples struggling with infertility must apply for grants and loans or use personal funds to assist themselves in becoming parents. 

]]> 2021-10-26 22:34:36 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846420144 OPTIONS: The Rate of Infertility by State sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846425349 As of April 2021, 19 states have passed fertility insurance coverage laws, 13 of those laws include IVF coverage, and 11 states have fertility preservation laws for iatrogenic (medically-induced) infertility. See the map below for states with an infertility insurance law. If your state is included, click on the hyperlinked state name at the bottom of the page for more details about the law and the coverage provided. We have also provided a list of questions to ask your employer to determine if you are covered by your state’s fertility insurance law or if your employer is self-insured and therefore not bound by state insurance laws. If you would like to advocate for new or expanded insurance legislation in your state, please email advocacy@resolve.org. To advocate for coverage directly with your employer, email coverageatwork@resolve.org.


]]> 2021-10-26 22:37:57 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846425349 OPTIONS: States that cover infertility through insurance coverage sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846440800 https://youtu.be/W0WA6U0nSf8

https://youtu.be/kpqw10NrRbE

https://youtu.be/pORznuMhHf4

Webinar: Infertility Coverage - Keep Talent and Comply with New Law


https://youtu.be/wgWi7ZbPwxM
]]> 2021-10-26 22:49:29 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846440800 Conclusion: Recommendation sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846443675
Misconceptions about conception abound: that conceiving a child is an easy process, that only heterosexual couples can conceive, that problems with fertility originate with women, and that all child-free couples are child-free by choice. In contrast, few are aware that numerous individuals wake up every morning questioning their existence because they are unable to conceive a child naturally, a dream so central to their sense of personhood and identity. In addition, few healthcare providers and lawmakers realize the discriminatory effects of one-dimensional definitions of fertility and reproduction. If society understood the circumstances beyond peoples’ control that lead to infertility, then we could collectively embrace the reality that infertility is a disease and those suffering from it need the same level of care and support as those suffering from other diseases.

 Society must recognize that regardless of race, class, sexual orientation, or gender, any person may one day find that they are infertile. This public awareness is the first step to establishing universal laws and policies that federally mandate coverage for infertility treatments and accelerating conversations that aim toward deconstructing a system that alienates certain groups from receiving the treatment and care necessary to start a family. This deconstruction includes reimagining the current definitions used to identify who qualifies for fertility treatments and infertility coverage. 

Social work practitioners and healthcare professionals can be critical to helping those with infertility overcome mental and emotional trauma. As such, they can be catalysts for changing narratives about infertility by highlighting systems of privilege at work in denying some the right to parenthood. Social workers and healthcare professionals are often voices for the voiceless and should be the leading advocates for federal laws and policies that promote equality and equity in infertility insurance coverage. Everyone deserves the chance to build a family. ]]> 2021-10-26 22:51:51 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846443675 Reference sabinypierrevil https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846451777
Blanchfield, B. V., & Patterson, C. J. (2015). Racial and sexual minority women’s receipt of medical assistance to become pregnant. Health Psychology, 34(6), 571.

 Campo-Engelstein, L. (2010). For the sake of consistency and fairness: Why insurance companies should cover fertility preservation treatment for iatrogenic infertility. Cancer treatment and research, 156, 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419- 6518-9_29

 Centers for Disease Control. (2019). What is assisted reproductive technology? https://www.cdc.gov/art/whatis.html

 Centers for Disease Control. (2016). Infertility.https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/ infertility.htm

 Chandra, A., Copen, C. E., & Stephen, E. H. (2013). Infertility and impaired fecundity in the United States, 1982-2010: Data from the National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Report, 14(67) 1-18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/24988820

Esteves, S. C. (2014). Clinical relevance of routine 🤬 analysis and controversies surrounding the 2010 World Health Organization criteria for 🤬 examination. International braz j urol, 40, 433-453.

Insogna, I. G., & Ginsburg, E. S. (2018). Infertility, inequality, and how lack of insurance coverage compromises reproductive autonomy. AMA journal of ethics, 20(12), 1152-1159.

Murray, K. S., James, A., McGeady, J. B., Reed, M. L., Kuang, W. W., & Nangia, A. K. (2012). The effect of the new 2010 World Health Organization criteria for 🤬 analyses on male infertility. Fertility and sterility, 98(6), 1428-1431.

Tietelbaum, J. & Wilensky, S. (2017) Essentials of health policy and law. (3rd ed.) Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Tutt, T. G. (2021). Healthcare Policy: Federally Mandated Insurance Coverage for Infertility Treatment. Columbia Social Work Review, 19(1), 2-19.

Weigel, G., Ranji, U, Long, M., and Salganicoff, A. (2020). Coverage and use of fertility services in the U.S.. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/coverageand-use-of-fertility-services-in-the-u-s/ 

White, L., McQuillan, J., & Greil, A.L. (2006). Explaining disparities in treatment-seeking: the case of infertility. Fertility and Sterility, 85(4), 853–857. 



 ]]> 2021-10-26 22:58:09 UTC https://padlet.com/sabinypierrevil/p5p2rqc4s9jabl1d/wish/1846451777