Hmmm…I think you should be able to buy a plan that does cover IVF, which would have a higher premium and probably some trade-offs in other ways, if you want. If you are committed to having biological children and have no ethical/religious problems with IVF, it would make sense for you to buy a policy that covers it. However, lower-cost policies (or policies that cost the same but cover other elective procedures) should be available, too.

The trouble with treating infertility as a disease is that it’s a really slippery slope. It’s normal and healthy to want to reproduce, but its also normal and healthy to want to have a “perfect” body…should cosmetic surgery be covered too?

Also, while infertility certainly does have some medical causes, you really can’t compare stents (which save lives and improve health) to IVF. IVF does not improve health. Period. Yes, it fulfills a normal, healthy desire, but it does not improve health the way stents do.

I agree with you Jenny. And I dealt with IF for five years. But I still don’t think all plans should be mandated to cover it.

Also I think too many people are jumping to IVF too quickly. There are in fact other treatments for male IF but right now they are often ignored in favor of IVF/ICSI.

After going through a few unsuccessful rounds of IUI, but then becoming pregnant naturally (yay!) I found out from my insurance company that if I had become pregnant via fertility treatment, NONE of my medical expenses related to the pregnancy or birth of that child would have been covered! I was floored. Not once, in ANY of my extensive research about fertility treatment, blog reading etc, did I ever come across this. Just wanted to also put that out there, that if you are going through IUI, or IVF, be sure to check with your insurance about medical coverage of any resulting pregnancies!

Too, infertility is often the result of an illness. I’ve heard of ins. companies refusing to treat PCOS because the treatment is… infertility treatment. Which they don’t cover. Sneaky, sneaky. Also, amen to the ED comment. Again, healthcare is healthcare. Either cover it or don’t. If my body isn’t functioning properly, and you can make it function properly, then do it (please and thank you). And, since you asked, being a member of the IBTC is not an example of a malfunction.

If insurance covered infertility treatments I think we would all approach them more logically. In my experience people implant more embryos, take the strongest drug, etc. because they want results fast (because they’re paying out of pocket). Maybe this is why it’s so expensive in the US? Why take Clomid when you can jump straight to injectables? Why implant 2 embryos when you can do 3? I think all fertility treatments are a slippery slope and having to pay out of pocket makes it more so.

As private companies, if insurance companies *want* to offer IVF, because they deem it is good for their business model, then they should. Neither government nor public insurance should, though. Getting pregnant is not a right, nor is not being able to get pregnant a life-threatening or even seriously hampering thing. Perhaps adoption should be made less expensive?

K – Do you have children?? I cannot believe that you honestly think it is “selfish” of parents to want children with their own DNA….why should I have to adopt someone else’s child because of their lack of responsibility and who may or may not have taken care of themselves when they were pregnant, if that child has defects it is just going to cost the healthcare system money once again. I think it is selfish of women who aren’t on birth control to get pregnant and cannot provide for these babies and expect that other people should have to raise their children. If the government would fund IVF they could put regulations in place so that if there is a disease that can cause infertility and can be passed onto the child they will not let them go through with the process. As well they will limit the implantation to one embryo as well as put limits on the age of the women. Keep your selfish comments to yourself and think about how the people feel who have always wanted a child of their own and cannot have one due to the high cost.

P.S. Adoption is more expensive then IVF ($10,000-$12,000), range is from about $15,000-$25,000 (for a child born in Canada) to about $25,000-$50,000+ (for a child born in the United States or overseas). How is a family supposed to be able to afford that and still be able to provide a financially stable home for a child?????

@pdxmama: truly insane that insurance companies would then try to bow out of related pregnancy and childbirth expenses.
I see no one who is against insurance coverage of IVF has addressed the ample coverage for ED treatment. I guess a right to wood into old age supersedes a right to procreate? Or am I assuming something about thems that makes the rules?

Interesting topic. I had trouble conceiving only my second child. I took clomid, and if I hadn’t conceived the month I did, we would have moved on to an IUI. At the time, we were on an HMO which covered 50% of infetility treatments. I think if all infertility treatments were covered by insurance, there would be protocols in place that would lower the cost substantially. I also think that couples would not be allowed to jump straight to IVF with multpiple embryos, but rather would have to try less invasive treatments first. I have nothing against adoption (being an adoptee myself) but I certainly understand the desire to have your own biological child, related through blood. My children are the only people I know who look like me and are related to me in that way. Don’t underetimate the impotance of that for some people. My best friend adopted 2 infants, before having two biologically and she’s always told me that the love she feels for her sdopted children is the same as the love she feels for her biological children. It was good for me to hear that, because as an adoptee, I think on some level, you always wonder. That got really personal.

I would like to see more obs educate women about charting before they start trying to get pregnant. A lot of women I know who charted and ended up having fertility issues were able to use the information contained in their charts to more quickly pinpoint the source(s) of their fertility problem(s) which in the end saved them time and money.

For example, a friend of mine who charted but who couldn’t get pregnant was puzzled because on paper her chart looked like a textbook chart for a very fertile woman. She took her charts to her doctor who immediately tested her husband’s sperm without running any tests on her or placing her on Clomid. It turns out that his sperm count was low. Once they found that out she was able to get pregnant pretty quickly without undergoing any painful or invasive fertility tests or treatments.

Charting is a pretty cheap way to gather data about a woman’s reproductive system so it baffles me that more obs don’t encourage it.

It’s a misconception that it’s mostly age related. We started trying at 24 and had severe male factor infertility. Low count, mobility, morphology AND produced antibodies. IVF was our only option. And several friends my age are having infertility problems. When we are told “you’re young, it’ll happen” it’s infuriating because it won’t. I don’t think healthcare is a right, so I don’t think fertility coverage is a right. But insurers need to look at costs overall with therapy and depression issues. For anyone not going through infertility, they can’t understand how all consuming the pain is. It can take over and destroy you – grief equal to a terminal disease. It is NOT just a oh I want to have a baby idea.

K, adoption may be right for some families and not others.

http://library.adoption.com/articles/adoption-trauma-that-last-a-life-time.html