Latest news with #Resolve:TheNationalInfertilityAssociation
San Francisco Chronicle
4 days ago
- Health
- San Francisco Chronicle
California's IVF coverage mandate may be delayed until 2026, leaving many in limbo
California lawmakers are poised to delay the state's much-ballyhooed new law mandating in vitro fertilization insurance coverage for millions, set to take effect July 1. Gov. Gavin Newsom has asked lawmakers to push the implementation date to January 2026, leaving patients, insurers, and employers in limbo. The law, SB 729, requires state-regulated health plans offered by large employers to cover infertility diagnosis and treatment, including IVF. Nine million people will qualify for coverage under the law. Advocates have praised the law as ' a major win for Californians,' especially in making same-sex couples and aspiring single parents eligible, though cost concerns limited the mandate's breadth. People who had been planning fertility care based on the original timeline are now 'left in a holding pattern facing more uncertainty, financial strain, and emotional distress,' Alise Powell, a director at Resolve: The National Infertility Association, said in a statement. During IVF, a patient's eggs are retrieved, combined with sperm in a lab, and then transferred to a person's uterus. A single cycle can total around $25,000, out of reach for many. The California law requires insurers to cover up to three egg retrievals and an unlimited number of embryo transfers. Not everyone's coverage would be affected by the delay. Even if the law took effect July 1, it wouldn't require IVF coverage to start until the month an employer's contract renews with its insurer. Rachel Arrezola, a spokesperson for the California Department of Managed Health Care, said most of the employers subject to the law renew their contracts in January, so their employees would not be affected by a delay. She declined to provide data on the percentage of eligible contracts that renew in July or later, which would mean those enrollees wouldn't get IVF coverage until at least a full year from now, in July 2026 or later. The proposed new implementation date comes amid heightened national attention on fertility coverage. California is now one of 15 states with an IVF mandate, and in February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order seeking policy recommendations to expand IVF access. It's the second time Newsom has asked lawmakers to delay the law. When the Democratic governor signed the bill in September, he asked the legislature to consider delaying implementation by six months. The reason, Newsom said then, was to allow time to reconcile differences between the bill and a broader effort by state regulators to include IVF and other fertility services as an essential health benefit, which would require the marketplace and other individual and small-group plans to provide the coverage. Newsom spokesperson Elana Ross said the state needs more time to provide guidance to insurers on specific services not addressed in the law to ensure adequate and uniform coverage. Arrezola said embryo storage and donor eggs and sperm were some examples of services requiring more guidance. Celeste Jale, a spokesperson for state Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Democrat who authored the original IVF mandate, acknowledged a delay could frustrate people yearning to expand their families, but requested patience 'a little longer so we can roll this out right.' Sean Tipton, a lobbyist for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, contended that the few remaining questions on the mandate did not warrant a long delay. Lawmakers appear poised to advance the delay to a vote by both houses of the Legislature, likely before the end of June. If a delay is approved and signed by the governor, the law would immediately be paused. If this does not happen before July 1, Arrezola said, the Department of Managed Health Care would enforce the mandate as it exists. All plans were required to submit compliance filings to the agency by March. Arrezola was unable to explain what would happen to IVF patients whose coverage had already begun if the delay passes after July 1. The California Association of Health Plans, which opposed the mandate, declined to comment on where implementation efforts stand, although the group agrees that insurers need more guidance, spokesperson Mary Ellen Grant said. Kaiser Permanente, the state's largest insurer, has already sent employers information that they can provide to their employees about the new benefit, company spokesperson Kathleen Chambers said. She added that eligible members whose plans renew on or after July 1 would have IVF coverage if implementation of the law is not delayed. Employers and some fertility care providers appear to be grappling over the uncertainty of the law's start date. Amy Donovan, a lawyer at insurance brokerage and consulting firm Keenan & Associates, said the firm has fielded many questions from employers about the possibility of delay. Reproductive Science Center and Shady Grove Fertility, both major clinics serving different areas of California, posted on their websites that the IVF mandate had been delayed until January 2026, which is not yet the case. They did not respond to requests for comment. Some infertility patients confused over whether and when they will be covered have run out of patience. Ana Rios and her wife, who live in the Central Valley, had been trying to have a baby for six years, dipping into savings for each failed treatment. Although she was 'freaking thrilled' to learn about the new law last fall, Rios could not get clarity from her employer or health plan on whether she was eligible for the coverage and when it would go into effect, she said. The couple decided to go to Mexico to pursue cheaper treatment options. 'You think you finally have a helping hand,' Rios said of learning about the law and then, later, the requested delay. 'You reach out, and they take it back.'
Axios
28-05-2025
- Health
- Axios
Conservative support builds for IVF guardrails
President Trump's imminent plans to issue a White House report promoting in vitro fertilization has spurred anti-abortion conservatives to call for new guardrails that could greatly limit the use of the treatment. Why it matters: Medical groups and fertility clinics warn that such steps could not only mislead couples hoping to conceive but also undercut administration efforts to boost the birth rate. The big picture: Trump has allied himself with "pro-natalist" policies to encourage a new baby boom and endorse assisted reproductive services in March when he called himself the "fertilization president." Several top GOP leaders have also spoken in support of IVF access. But IVF generally involves the creation of more human embryos than are needed, in order to improve the odds of a pregnancy. The surplus embryos can be frozen for future use or to be adopted by other couples, but many are discarded — a practice some anti-abortion forces liken to assisted suicide and abortion. The procedure is politically fraught, since polling has found 85% of Americans support access to IVF, Barbara Collura, the president of Resolve: The National Infertility Association, told Axios. "How in the world are you going to move forward if 85% of Americans like something?" Collura said. The answer, she said, appears to be a concept called "ethical IVF" that regulates how many embryos are created. Between the lines: A report from the Heritage Foundation in April called for lawmakers to tread carefully but set some standards for a fertility industry they view as largely unchecked. It raised concerns about "nonregulation of the IVF industry" as well as the "widespread use of ethically questionable nonmedical interventions such as sex selection" as well as the "commodification" of eggs, sperm and embryos. It also specifically called for support of "restorative reproductive medicine" built around ideas about healing infertile women through "hormone-balancing, dietary and nutritional adjustments, environmental changes and, in some cases, surgery." Zoom in: Advocates for reproductive medicine technologies say they're increasingly seeing references to "ethical IVF" pop up in state legislatures — a term they say implies some forms of IVF are somehow unethical — and wonder whether the term may appear in recommendations from the White House. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine calls both ethical IVF and restorative medicine "misleading terminology" which "can be used to promote ideologically driven restrictions that could limit patient care." Advocates also say they worry IVF coverage could be limited to married heterosexual couples, preventing single people or gay and lesbian partners from pursuing parenthood. They also worry mandates for unused embryos to be given to other families, genetic testing bans or restrictions on freezing embryos could be embedded in the recommendations. Friction point: IVF without surplus embryos is technically possible. However, experts say it is exhausting and expensive, and greatly reduces the chances of a successful pregnancy. Reproductive health experts say they already make adjustments to help patients navigate particular ethical concerns where possible, but say mandates on a nationwide level would be harmful. What we're watching: Ideas that have been floated as potential recommendations in the White House report include requiring insurance coverage of IVF for military members and declaring it an "essential health benefit" under the Affordable Care Act, The Hill reported.
Washington Post
19-02-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Trump's executive order aims to lower the cost of IVF. Here's what we know.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order aimed at expanding access to in vitro fertilization treatments and 'aggressively' reducing its costs. IVF, a procedure thousands have relied on to start a family, was jeopardized in Alabama last year when the state's Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are legally children and that people could be held liable for destroying them. State lawmakers moved swiftly to protect IVF, but the frenzy that followed the case illuminated the complexity of addressing non-abortion procedures. Trump's allies touted Tuesday's executive order as the president making good on a campaign promise. While on the campaign trail, Trump proposed that the government or insurance companies would cover all IVF costs. The new order does not explicitly mention the government or insurance providers. Reproductive rights advocates remain cautious, noting that the order does not specify how expanding IVF access and lowering costs would work. 'What we saw yesterday with the executive order is not a fulfillment of that promise, but we look at it as a first step,' said Barbara Collura, president of Resolve: The National Infertility Association. Here's what to know: The executive order charges the assistant to the president for domestic policy to submit policy recommendations on 'protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs' within 90 days. It acknowledges that IVF can cost tens of thousands of dollars for one round. In many cases, patients need more than one treatment, and their experience may also involve multiple specialists, numerous appointments and expensive medications. 'My Administration recognizes the importance of family formation, and as a Nation, our public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children,' Trump's order states. Some Democratic lawmakers were quick to note that that executive order did not trigger any immediate expansion or protection for IVF. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois), who had her children with the help of IVF, described the order as 'overly vague' and 'toothless' in a statement Tuesday. She called on Trump to urge her GOP colleagues to support legislation she introduced last year to protect IVF access, which nearly every Senate Republican voted against considering. 'Otherwise, it's all just lip-service from a known liar,' Duckworth wrote. If it had been considered and passed, the bill would have required insurers that provide coverage for obstetric services to also cover fertility treatments. On the campaign trail, Trump said that if he won a second term, he would mandate that the government or private insurance companies cover all IVF costs. But Tuesday's executive order did not provide details on how IVF costs would be reduced or whether that burden would fall on the government, insurance companies or both. The order said the recommendations would focus on how to significantly reduce 'out-of-pocket and health plan costs' for IVF. A White House fact sheet added that the recommendations will prioritize how to address any policies that 'exacerbate the cost of IVF treatments.' Collura, the president of Resolve, said she hopes the White House will consult with advocacy and medical organizations that have conducted policy research on IVF long before it became a legal flash point and campaign issue last year. 'Quite honestly, we could get this done in a few weeks,' Collura said. 'We don't need 90 days.' Last February, the Republican-controlled Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos were people and that individuals could be held liable for destroying them, in a decision that wreaked havoc across the country. For IVF providers, some of whom paused treatments in Alabama, the decision stoked fears that disposing of extra embryos — a standard practice after clinics create as many embryos as possible to maximize the odds for success — would land them in legal trouble. For those who had planned to use IVF, the ruling halted hopes of starting a family. And for politicians, it raised the question of how to navigate non-abortion reproductive procedures. Democrats capitalized on the Alabama ruling, calling it a Republican-created risk to reproductive health procedures. They highlighted that Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices during his first term, positioning the court to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022 and giving states room to legislate abortion and consider the question of personhood. At the same time, Republicans struggled to quickly establish a party line on IVF. Many stayed quiet after the Alabama ruling until they recognized that the procedure was popular with voters and would become a hot-button issue on the campaign trail. GOP candidates in key elections, including Trump, later voiced their support for IVF. As Election Day drew nearer, Trump came out stronger to back IVF as he seemed to be losing favor with female voters compared with his opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. During an all-female town hall event in Georgia in October, Trump again told attendees that he supported IVF, saying: 'I'm the father of IVF, so I want to hear this question.' He also called the Republican Party 'the party for IVF' and praised the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe. Weeks earlier, he announced during a speech in Michigan that under his administration, all costs associated with IVF treatment would be free — covered by the government or insurance companies. 'Because we want more babies, to put it nicely,' he said. Coverage of IVF costs varies by state and employer. Only about a quarter of employers with 200 or more employees cover IVF, according to a KFF report, and some states have a mandate for insurers to cover it. The federal government provides coverage in some circumstances, such as for veterans with injuries and health conditions from their military service that affect their fertility. Last year, the Department of Veterans Affairs said it would extend that benefit to qualifying veterans who are single or in same-sex marriages. Bringing a sweeping change to coverage would be difficult because of all the different methods of coverage for the procedures and its associated costs, said Julia Strasser, director of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health at George Washington University. Covering IVF is further complicated by many patients needing more than one round of treatment. 'You need multiple levels of policy change that all have to happen, not necessarily at the same time, but have to happen together to be able to create coverage across the whole spectrum,' Strasser said. Sabrina Malhi and Maeve Reston contributed to this report.
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump signs executive order asking for recommendations on lowering IVF costs
President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order directing federal agencies to find ways to reduce the high cost of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. The order directs the Domestic Policy Council to make recommendations 'on how to ensure reliable access to IVF,' according to a White House fact sheet. It sets a 90-day deadline for the recommendations to be submitted. 'Fertilization, I've been saying that we're going to do what we have to do. And I think the women — and families, husbands — are very appreciative of it,' Trump said at an event at Mar-a-Lago. According to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, the average cost for one cycle of IVF is about $15,000, and many patients require multiple cycles before a successful pregnancy is achieved. 'The recommendations will focus on how to ensure reliable access to IVF,' a White House fact sheet said. 'Priority will also be placed on addressing any current policies, including those that require legislation, that exacerbate the cost of IVF treatments.' Trump vowed during the 2024 presidential campaign that he would ensure IVF treatments would be covered by the government or that the government would require insurance companies to cover it. The executive order doesn't directly address that promise, but Resolve: The National Infertility Association said it was a promising first step — so long as there was follow-through. 'From my perspective, this is a really good first step,' the group's CEO Barbara Collura said. 'The government, they love to do reports. So let's see what the report says, and then what the action is once it's released.' Last year, Senate Republicans twice blocked consideration of legislation that would have protected access to IVF and made the treatments more affordable, calling it a political stunt from Democrats. Collura said she is hopeful for action this year on bipartisan House legislation to require private health insurers to cover IVF, intrauterine insemination and fertility preservation services. The HOPE with Fertility Services Act was introduced last year by then-Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), who is now the nominee to lead the Department of Labor. The bill hasn't yet been reintroduced. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
