If you needed knee surgery or medication for depression or a suspicious mole removed, your insurance would likely cover it. For the millions of couples struggling with infertility though, the astronomical, out-of-pocket costs of in vitro fertilization put a serious strain on finances, and make having a child practically impossible for many. In states where insurance coverage for IVF isn't mandated, couples and doctors often feel pressure to ensure it works the first time around, transferring more embryos and resulting in an increased number of multiple births. In the 15 states where these treatments are covered, the incidents of multiple births are much lower.
But, as it turns out, multiple births (including the care of a mother carrying twins or triplets or more) put even more of a financial strain on the health care system than IVF does. So isn't it about time that every state got on board, and insisted that insurance companies cover these miracle-creating treatments?
I know a number of women who now have beautiful, healthy children as a result of fertility treatments, whether they had surgery on their uterus or fallopian tubes, took Clomid, were inseminated, or went through IVF. But not one of them got pregnant the first time around, and all had to try a few different things before finally getting the baby or babies they had been so desperate for. I also have friends who saved up as much money as they could to do IVF just once, only to have it fail, and now don't know if they'll ever have a child. Unfortunately, money always seems to play a part, creating families for many of those who have, and leaving those have-nots still clinging to hope.
So I'm wondering why all states aren't insisting that insurance companies cover fertility treatments and IVF, at least one round. I'm not saying that the government needs to pay for it, just that they should make sure these treatments are covered in their state. Personally, I think treating infertility is just as viable as treating a whole range of other, non life-threatening illnesses. The medicine is there -- couples should be able to use it.
Sure, many will disagree with me and I say, bring it on! To those who think fertility treatments are elective, try telling that to a woman who's depressed and falling apart because she can't seem to have the one thing she wants more than anything in the world -- a child. I doubt she feels like she has a choice. To those who say, "Well, they should just adopt," did you know that it can cost as much as $40,000 to adopt a baby? That's more than two rounds of IVF. I know some will say that if you can't conceive naturally, maybe it's not in God's plan. But why would God guide doctors and scientists to discover medical miracles like IVF (as well as fetal ultrasounds, C-sections, and neonatal medicine), if it weren't part of some amazing master plan? Look into the adorable, smiling face of an IVF baby and you won't be able to deny that he or she is one of God's creatures.
In the end, though, it comes down to money and what makes the most financial sense for big business. Where do you stand? Do you believe insurance companies should cover fertility treatments?
Image via MoneyBlogNewz/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 85
This is a really hard topic. On one hand, I agree that IVF is a worthwhile medical procedure, and would have no argument with my insurance company providing coverage for it. Many years ago, we had a kick-ass insurance plan that covered not only IVF (no idea how many rounds), but they also covered adoption costs. Although I never needed to use it, I thought it was pretty amazing - especially since we didn't have a child, and I am personally against IVF for myself. So if we couldn't concieve naturally, we'd have gone straight to adoption.
Having said that, where do we stop with "requiring" insurance companies to cover stuff? Do we cover breast enhancements? Sex-change operations? I know that they're not the same as IVF, but in many cases, they are just as important to one person's mental well-being as IVF may be to another's.
I don't know what the answer is. Truly I don't. I know I don't want the government stepping in - every time they do, things just get more messed up than they already are. Perhaps we have insurance cover the big stuff, and we take care of the small stuff ourselves. But then we have to determine that line again.
OK....Dear woman who's depressed and falling apart because she can't seem to have the one thing she wants more than anything in the world -- a child.....fertility treatments are elective, and therefore not something your insurance carrier should have to cover, not even once, as suggested by the writer, since, as also stated by the writer, it's expensive and has a high failure rate.
Boy, that was easy.
I'm certain this topic will go on to become as emotional and illogical as it did last time, with claims that birthing a child is a "right", regardless of natural ability of the mother or father, and/or inability to finance the medical miracle necessary to satisfy that "right". Is it about money? Of course. These are expensive procedures that more often than not fail to produce the desired outcome. If the woman or couple who so desperately want a child can't make it enough of a priority to privately fund it, why should the insurance company be more commited to it than they are?
You do realize that only 5% of couples need IVF as a last option in getting pregnant right??? So even if it is exspensive there are other things that come before IVF is even used, so why not give them a round or two of IVF if they cant have a child any other way??? We can spend millions keeping AIDS patients alive but not give someone the gift of a child??? OR what about preemies, bet none of you thought about the cost of keeping one of them alive either. And i should know the cost since i have had three preemies and the bills rack up fast. Have a heart people.
Having a child is not a right, its not even a priveldge. If you cant have one and decide that you want one badly enough to go through IVF etc etc, then YOU need to pay for it. I feel bad that some women and men cant have children, but it is not a necessary to have them. I personally believe that we need to stop expecting or wanting insurance companies to pay for everything, and then turn around and bitch because you have to pay 600 a month for an insurance plan.
Oh boo hoo to bad that you have to pay 600 a month for insurance, why dont you just sign up for the obama plan i am sure that will safe you some much needed cash, ha ha ha. Some of you women are so heartless it surprises me that your even mothers.
I don't think insurance plans should cover it unless you have proven that you CAN provide for it! (i.e. savings enough to cover the first few years and proof of stability) Otherwise, the people who can't afford anything without government help will be entitled to the same. We have enough people having babies to get more money. If your heart will break if you don't have a baby and are having trouble getting pregnant, seek therapy! Figure out why adopting, fostering or any other thing won't do. I'll bet you'll find an underlying issue that probably goes something like this: I want someone who will love me unconditionally and for me to love in return. Sounds like a pet is in order!
Totally laughing at the 'have a heart, give them a child' and 'boohoo, you have to pay for insurance' from the same person, about the same topic. What's it like to live in a world where only people who can't afford a luxury should get it, and people who are struggling to get the basics should just shut up about it? And let's not even bother with the fact that you clearly don't understand that "free" Obamacare you referenced.
Oh, this is gonna be fun!