
|
 |
|
|
What Are The Past & Pending
Infertility Insurance Mandates/Legislation?
|
|
|
By:
Craig
R. Sweet, M.D.
Craig
W. Sohn, Esq. |
|
Quick Jumps:
|
|
In addition to paying close attention to the progress of the Saks case
and other state and federal cases regarding the definition of disability and the
provision of insurance coverage for infertility treatment, we should also watch
what is happening in the state legislatures across the nation. A mandate
to offer means there is law that requires health insurance companies at
least offer to cover infertility diagnosis and treatment. A mandate to
cover generally means that health insurance companies must provide
infertility diagnosis and treatment for all policyholders.
Currently, there are 13 states that either mandate to offer or mandate
to cover infertility diagnosis and treatment as briefly
summarized below:
|
| State |
Mandate To Offer |
Mandate To Cover |
Comments |
| California
|
+
|
|
Must
offer infertility diagnosis and treatment but excludes IVF. |
| Connecticut
|
+ |
|
Must
offer infertility diagnosis and treatment and includes IVF. |
| Texas
|
+ |
|
Must
offer infertility diagnosis and treatment and includes IVF. |
| Arkansas
|
|
+ |
Excludes
HMOs. Lifetime benefit cap at $15,000. |
| Hawaii
|
|
+ |
Restrictive
but covers one cycle of IVF. |
| Illinois
|
|
+ |
Comprehensive
including up to four IVF procedures (two for second birth). Group policies
with < 25 employees exempt. |
| Maryland
|
|
+ |
Some
diagnoses require waiting period but does cover IVF. Group policies with < 50
employees exempt. |
| Mass. |
|
+ |
Comprehensive |
| Montana
|
|
+ |
Mandates
HMOs to cover infertility. |
| New
York |
|
+ |
Mandated
to cover correctable medical conditions, regardless of fertility or
infertility diagnosis. |
| Ohio
|
|
+ |
Mandates
HMOs to cover infertility. |
| Rhode
Island |
|
+ |
Comprehensive,
includes ART, larger co-payment allowed. |
| West
Virginia |
|
+ |
Mandates
HMOs to cover infertility. |
|
ART:
Assisted Reproductive Technologies
IVF: In Vitro Fertilization
HMO: Health Maintenance Organization
|
Unless otherwise specified, self-insuring businesses are not required to comply
with state insurance mandates.
A detailed discussion regarding each of the 13 state laws is beyond the scope of
this work. Suffice it to say that each state law is different and it is
recommended that you contact your state’s Insurance Commission for additional
information.
|
|
|
|
Legislative advocacy efforts are listed below for the following states: Florida,
Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington State and Wisconsin. An excellent summary of
the ongoing legislation with links to the various states can be found at http://www.resolve.org/advstate.htm.
|
|
|
|
There are currently three bills, which are
currently under some level of consideration at the Federal level.
H.R. 2774 was sponsored by Representative Marty Meehan (D-MA). This bill amends
chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code and provides that any health insurance
plan, which provides OB coverage, will have to cover for the diagnosis and
treatment of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss, including non-experimental
[including IVF, Gamete Intra-Fallopian Tube Transfer (GIFT), Zygote
Intra-Fallopian Tube Transfer (ZIFT)] Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).
Here are some other proposed requirements of the bill:
-
Coverage
will not be subject to copayments or deductibles greater than those that
apply to OB benefits.
-
The
ART facility must comply with nationally recognized standards and
certification organizations.
-
This
bill would require federal employees’ health plans to cover infertility
services.
-
If
a patient achieves success on the third or fourth attempt, two additional
attempts will be covered (six lifetime maximum).
-
It
would appear that coverage would only be provided if the patient had not
already undergone four ART procedures previously. This actually makes some
sense since those individuals may be better served through adoption or
possibly egg donation.
-
If
there are certain religious restrictions (i.e., Catholicism), these health
plans will not be required to cover infertility treatments they find
objectionable.
-
Interestingly,
two physicians, one who “specialize” in infertility, must make the
diagnosis. It may be more cost effective to remove this requirement.
Nonexperimental ART procedures will be determined by the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the American College of Obstetrics &
Gynecology (ACOG) and other similar nationally recognized organizations or
Federal agency.
H.R. 2774 was sent to the House Committee on Government Reform.
As of 7/2000, there were 14 cosponsors to the bill.
*****
***** *****
|
|
H.R. 2706, sponsored by Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY). This act is being
called the Family Building Act of 1999. The goal was to amend the Public Health
Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and chapter 5,
United States Code, to require coverage for the treatment of infertility.
The wording of this bill was intriguing in that it admits that, “A fundamental
part of the human experience is fulfilling the desire to reproduce.” An astute
comment, indeed.
This plan provides greater detail and specifically covers IVF, GIFT, ZIFT,
Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) and other common ART treatments. Some
of the other specifics of the bill are as follow:
-
It
was interesting that experimental vs. non-experimental services would be
determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services following
consultation with the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the
American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) and RESOLVE. With all
due respect to RESOLVE, it is uncertain how RESOLVE will be able to discuss
scientific merits of various procedures. Nevertheless, they will offer the
patient perspective.
-
Up
to four cycles would be covered without success and up to six if there was a
live birth success from the process.
-
This
bill proposes that the process be re-reviewed every five years.
-
Deductibles,
coinsurance, and other cost-sharing or other limitations for infertility
therapy may not be imposed to the extent they exceed the deductibles,
coinsurance, and limitations that are applied to similar services under the
group health plan or health insurance coverage.
The bill was sent to the House Committee on Government Reform, the House
Commerce Committee, and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. As
of 7/2000, there were 17 cosponsors on the bill.
*****
***** *****
|
|
United States Senator Robert G. Torricelli, a Democrat from New Jersey, introduced the
Fair Access to Infertility
Treatment and Hope Act of 2000 (FAITH: S. 2160) on 3/2000.
This
bill seems to be the most expansive of those offered. This bill proposes the
following:
-
Group health care plans
are to offer the evaluation and treatment of infertility.
-
Treatment includes
insemination procedures and medications.
-
Coverage will allow for
ART procedures including egg donation, embryo donation and "low tubal
ovum transfers" (GIFT?). From what we can tell, four embryo transfers
will be allowed. If a pregnancy and live birth occur with the 4th transfer,
an additional two transfers will be offered.
Under
this proposed legislation, the health care plan is forbidden to do the
following:
-
Provide monetary payments
or rebates to a covered individual to encourage such individual to accept
less than the minimum protections available.
-
Provide
incentives (monetary or otherwise) to a health care professional to induce
such professional to withhold from a covered individual services. This is
interesting in that some managed care plans offer physicians end-of-year
bonuses if utilization is minimized.
Deductibles,
limitations or cost-sharing programs will be allowed but must be fair throughout
the program.
Required coverage for infertility benefits for federal employees will be offered.
This
proposed legislation covers a large number of areas and will probably encounter
an equally expansive level of opposition. We are uncertain where this
legislation is in the "pipeline" and will keep close track of it when
more information becomes available. As of 7/2000, there were no cosponsors for
the bill.
There
is currently an on-line petition which you can sign. Please press here
to access it.
*****
***** *****
|
|
RESOLVE has an excellent web page with the various addresses and e-mail
addresses of the chairs and the members of the committees currently involved in
H.R. 2774 and 2706. These can be obtained by visiting http://www.resolve.org/advcommittee.htm.
Additional information on the bills themselves can be found by visiting http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html
and searching under “H.R. 2774” and “H.R. 2706”.
You may obtain information about S. 2160 by visiting http://www.senate.gov/index.cfm
and typing "S. 2160" in the lower left-hand corner under
"Number" and then press "go".
You may also review a letter that Dr. Sweet recently sent to his patients by
downloading the pdf letter below:
(Patient
Letter, 18 kb, 72 dpi, screen optimized)
(Patient
Letter, 67 Kb, 300 dpi, print optimized)
|
|
|
|
Click on any of the links below to continue this commentary:
|
|
|
|
updated 3/20/2000 |