» Articles » PMID: 35927756

Impact of in Vitro Fertilization State Mandates for Third Party Insurance Coverage in the United States: a Review and Critical Assessment

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine estimates that fewer than a quarter of infertile couples have sufficient access to infertility care. Insurers in the United States (US) have long considered infertility to be a socially constructed condition, and thus in-vitro fertilization (IVF) an elective intervention. As a result, IVF is cost prohibitive for many patients in the US. State infertility insurance mandates are a crucial mechanism for expanding access to fertility care in the US in the absence of federal legislation. The first state insurance mandate for third party coverage of infertility services was passed by West Virginia in 1977, and Maryland passed the country's first IVF mandate in 1985. To date, twenty states have passed legislation requiring insurers to cover or offer coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Ten states currently have "comprehensive" IVF mandates, meaning they require third party coverage for IVF with minimal restrictions to patient eligibility, exemptions, and lifetime limits. Several studies analyzing the impact of infertility and IVF mandates have been published in the past 20 years. In this review, we characterize and contextualize the existing evidence of the impact of state insurance mandates on access to infertility treatment, IVF practice patterns, and reproductive outcomes. Furthermore, we summarize the arguments in favor of insurance coverage for infertility care and assess the limitations of state insurance mandates as a strategy for increasing access to infertility treatment. State mandates play a key role in the promotion of evidence-based practices and represent an essential and impactful strategy for the advancement of gender equality and reproductive rights.

Citing Articles

Comparing vasectomy techniques, recovery and complications: tips and tricks.

Borrell J, Gu C, Ye N, Mills J, Andino J Int J Impot Res. 2025; .

PMID: 39890927 DOI: 10.1038/s41443-025-01018-5.


Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Management of Male Infertility, a Scoping Review.

Naik N, Roth B, Lundy S Curr Urol Rep. 2024; 26(1):17.

PMID: 39520645 PMC: 11550229. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-024-01239-z.


Racial/ethnic disparity in severe maternal morbidity among women who conceived by in vitro fertilization.

Victory J, John S, Wang L, Koegl J, Richter L, Bayrampour H AJOG Glob Rep. 2024; 4(3):100367.

PMID: 39100508 PMC: 11296243. DOI: 10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100367.


The influence of assisted reproductive technologies-related stressors and social support on perceived stress and depression.

Gupta A, Lu E, Thayer Z BMC Womens Health. 2024; 24(1):431.

PMID: 39068405 PMC: 11282751. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-03262-1.


The relationship between socioeconomic status and perinatal outcomes in in vitro fertilization conceptions.

Fotovati M, Badeghiesh A, Baghlaf H, Dahan M AJOG Glob Rep. 2024; 4(2):100329.

PMID: 38919707 PMC: 11197111. DOI: 10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100329.


References
1.
Banks N, Norian J, Bundorf M, Henne M . Insurance mandates, embryo transfer, outcomes--the link is tenuous. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94(7):2776-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.05.037. View

2.
Greil A, McQuillan J, Shreffler K, Johnson K, Slauson-Blevins K . Race-ethnicity and medical services for infertility: stratified reproduction in a population-based sample of U.S. women. J Health Soc Behav. 2011; 52(4):493-509. DOI: 10.1177/0022146511418236. View

3.
Roche K, Racowsky C, Harper J . Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38(5):1045-1053. PMC: 8190209. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02078-4. View

4.
Shi Y, Sun Y, Hao C, Zhang H, Wei D, Zhang Y . Transfer of Fresh versus Frozen Embryos in Ovulatory Women. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(2):126-136. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705334. View

5.
Galic I, Negris O, Warren C, Brown D, Bozen A, Jain T . Disparities in access to fertility care: who's in and who's out. F S Rep. 2021; 2(1):109-117. PMC: 8244333. DOI: 10.1016/j.xfre.2020.11.001. View