I'm sure my opinion on this is not the popular one but I don't think insurance companies should be required to cover infertility treatments. Yes, infertility has physiological and/or medical causes. But that's not a sufficient criterion in my mind. I think that covered items should be necessary to reduce morbidity or mortality or disfigurement unless there is a compelling social benefit to improving access to the service, e.g., contraception. IMO, the current social cost of infertility, while non-zero, is not high enough to warrant obliging companies (or states) to provide treatment.

I agree it is crappy that infertility treatments are prohibitively expensive for many people. There are many worthwhile things in life that are prohibitively expensive. Actually, the unfairness of it makes me want to have the opposite opinion but I need some persuading.

It is easy to not like the idea of infertility insurance if you can get pregnant by just having sex.  We are supposed to pay for people not to have babies, but not to help people get pregnant??  I don't understand that.

If it weren't for my husband's insurance, we'd have two fewer kids.

As for going straight for IVF, I've heard of just doing that.  

I dunno where I stand.  I went through a battery of tests before finding out I wasn't ovulating.  I only needed synthroid to ovulate again--and IUI to get pregnant.  I have a friend whose doctor didn't even do an hcg or endometrial biopsy and encouraged her to do IVF.  She ended up getting pregnant without help.  

Pingback from  Sideleft.Com » Straight To IVF, Do Not Pass Go

Sherri wrote: "We are supposed to pay for people not to have babies, but not to help people get pregnant??  I don't understand that."

It is not symmetrical. Social cost and benefit of each is different.

for people not to have babies: benefit high, cost very low.

to help people get pregnant: benefit low, cost very high

If insurance companies are required to cover IVF, premiums would need to go up. Then society has to handle the social cost of more people being unable to afford insurance - either through their morbidity and mortality or through covering their insurance costs.

OK.  And what makes you think that if birth control is a mandated expense that must be covered by insurance, premiums won't go up???  If given an excuse (mandated birth control) an insurance company will raise premiums.  That said, there are probably fewer infertile people than those who have no fertility problems.  Paying for 15 or more years of birth control is costly.  Then we get into a giant pissing match--I really don't want to have to pay for your birth control, and you don't want to have to pay for me to get pregnant.  Where does it all end???  

Oh, and I really hope my children will grow up to benefit society.    

Good point on the contraception example, Sherri. Clearly, it was a bad example. I was just trying illustrate that my criteria were broader than reduction of morbidity, mortality, or disfigurement. I would broaden them based on compelling social benefit.

Can anyone argue that there is a compelling social benefit to IVF? any other compelling reason that IVF should be mandated?

Suppose IVF were mandated. Would there be limits? diagnosis? maternal age? number of cycles?

If fertility treatments are covered then adoption should be covered as well.  We chose to adopt rather than waste a lot more money on infertility treatments.  Never had a single treatment.  I wanted to parent more than I wantd to be pregnant.  My best friends said she wasted 10 years and thousands of dollars on treatments when she could have been adopting 10 kids for the same money in the same time.  She now has two gorgeous daughters in the past 3 years.  Total costs for both adoptions was less than 40K.  

Adoption is a wonderful thing.  I'm adopted and damned proud of it too.  We wanted to adopt.  And I wanted and needed to stay home for my oldest.  So adoption is completely out of our price range.  So is having to give said baby back because birth mom changed her mind (big fear of mine and in Indiana birth moms have 6 frigging months to do so).  There was no way I could have gotten a baby and had someone take it away from me at 5 1/2 months and come out of the experience with my mental health completely intact.  

Also, infertility treatments are covered under medical insurance because well, you are having something medically done to you whether having a test done or having eggs retrieved or whatnot.  Adoption is not because well, nothing is being done medically.  Once that child is adopted or in the process of adoption, you can put him/her on your medical insurance.  And you can claim some adoption costs on your taxes.  

Also, in my case, I didn't have any huge fertility issues.  I had already had one child.  All we needed help with was with some thyroid meds and the male factor.  That's it.  

Congratulations on your children.  Almost anyone can have a  baby.  But not everyone can be a mom.  Giving birth is way overrated in that aspect.