News | U.S. Federal Government Expands Fertility Benefits
As more companies offer generous fertility benefits to attract and retain skilled employees, the federal government is following suit. Beginning this year, federal employees can choose plans that cover a range of fertility services, including up to $25,000 annually for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and three cycles of artificial insemination per year.
As the country's largest employer, with about 2.1 million civilian employees, the federal government is prioritizing fertility benefits and joining employers that cover in vitro fertilization, a procedure used for more than 40 years. However, the move has sparked controversy among some anti-abortion Republican members of Congress and presidential candidates.
Mary Ziegler, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law and an expert in reproductive medicine, said, "Since the 1960s, the anti-abortion movement has also been a fetal personhood movement. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision removed constitutional protections for abortion, anti-abortion groups and Republicans have struggled with how the concept of fetal personhood relates to assisted reproductive technologies such as IVF."
Last month, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF are children under state law. The decision prompted two Democratic senators to introduce legislation intended to protect IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies by establishing a legal right to access them. However, a Republican opponent blocked the bill in the Senate.
These events highlight the Republican Party's difficulty in addressing IVF. Many Republicans support IVF and recognize its broad popularity: according to a CBS News-YouGov poll, 86% of adults believe IVF should be legal. However, the Alabama ruling and disagreement within the Republican Party over a federal response exposed internal divisions.
Anti-abortion groups strongly oppose measures such as the Senate bill, arguing that lawmakers must balance IVF with a responsibility to respect life.
"Republicans are trying to fine-tune their position on this, but it is very difficult," Ziegler said.
According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, about 10% of men and women experience fertility problems. IVF, in which eggs are fertilized in a laboratory before an embryo is transferred to the uterus, is among the most expensive fertility treatments, costing about $20,000 per cycle. Even with insurance coverage, the procedure remains costly, but for some people it is the only path to parenthood.
The number of companies offering fertility benefits has grown steadily in recent years. According to Mercer's annual employer survey, fewer than one-quarter of employers with at least 500 employees offered IVF coverage in the early 2000s. By 2023, the share had nearly doubled to 45%. Employers typically cap IVF benefits. In 2023, the median employer lifetime maximum for IVF benefits was $20,000.
The federal government's IVF benefit, which pays up to $25,000 annually, is more generous than that of a typical employer. According to the office responsible for federal employee plans, the benefit is available through the Standard Option of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Federal Employee Program. A total of 24 federal employee health plans for 2024 offer enhanced IVF coverage, with varying benefits and cost-sharing.
"OPM's mission is to attract and retain the workforce of the future," press secretary Viet Tran said in a written response. He noted that surveys show federal health benefits influence employees' decisions to remain with the federal government.
However, it remains unclear how political debate over IVF and other reproductive health issues will affect national benefit and coverage trends.
Last month, after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF are children under state law, the state legislature quickly passed a bill, signed by Republican Governor Kay Ivey, granting immunity to patients and providers involved in IVF services. In the debate that followed, a coalition of more than a dozen anti-abortion groups signed a letter stating, "Science and logic have made clear that embryos must have the same rights as other human beings." Alabama's law did not resolve the issue of embryo "personhood," leaving room for further litigation and possible restrictions on IVF.
More than one-third of states legally recognize a fetus as a person at some stage of pregnancy, according to a Politico analysis.
It remains unclear whether the disruption caused by the Alabama case will have a long-term effect on employee benefits there or in other states.
"If this occurs in multiple states, employers will have to determine how to respond," said Jim Winkler, Chief Strategy Officer of the nonprofit Business Group on Health, which represents large employers. Winkler said employers should monitor the issue but are unlikely to plan changes for now.
A Mercer blog post recommends that employers review health plan policies involving medical travel and leave benefits. It also advises, "Employers should monitor other states that broadly define fetal personhood and restrict reproductive health care."
Dorianne Mason, Director of Health Equity at the National Women's Law Center, said that after the Alabama judges' decision, "State legislatures responded quickly to intense public opposition. Unlike abortion, the legislative response to IVF has moved in a markedly different direction regarding access to care."
News | U.S. Federal Government Expands Fertility Benefits
News | U.S. Federal Government Expands Fertility Benefits
As more companies offer generous fertility benefits to attract and retain skilled employees, the federal government is following suit. Beginning this year, federal employees can choose plans that cover a range of fertility services, including up to $25,000 annually for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and three cycles of artificial insemination per year.
As the country's largest employer, with about 2.1 million civilian employees, the federal government is prioritizing fertility benefits and joining employers that cover in vitro fertilization, a procedure used for more than 40 years. However, the move has sparked controversy among some anti-abortion Republican members of Congress and presidential candidates.
Mary Ziegler, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law and an expert in reproductive medicine, said, "Since the 1960s, the anti-abortion movement has also been a fetal personhood movement. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision removed constitutional protections for abortion, anti-abortion groups and Republicans have struggled with how the concept of fetal personhood relates to assisted reproductive technologies such as IVF."
Last month, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF are children under state law. The decision prompted two Democratic senators to introduce legislation intended to protect IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies by establishing a legal right to access them. However, a Republican opponent blocked the bill in the Senate.
These events highlight the Republican Party's difficulty in addressing IVF. Many Republicans support IVF and recognize its broad popularity: according to a CBS News-YouGov poll, 86% of adults believe IVF should be legal. However, the Alabama ruling and disagreement within the Republican Party over a federal response exposed internal divisions.
Anti-abortion groups strongly oppose measures such as the Senate bill, arguing that lawmakers must balance IVF with a responsibility to respect life.
"Republicans are trying to fine-tune their position on this, but it is very difficult," Ziegler said.
According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, about 10% of men and women experience fertility problems. IVF, in which eggs are fertilized in a laboratory before an embryo is transferred to the uterus, is among the most expensive fertility treatments, costing about $20,000 per cycle. Even with insurance coverage, the procedure remains costly, but for some people it is the only path to parenthood.
The number of companies offering fertility benefits has grown steadily in recent years. According to Mercer's annual employer survey, fewer than one-quarter of employers with at least 500 employees offered IVF coverage in the early 2000s. By 2023, the share had nearly doubled to 45%. Employers typically cap IVF benefits. In 2023, the median employer lifetime maximum for IVF benefits was $20,000.
The federal government's IVF benefit, which pays up to $25,000 annually, is more generous than that of a typical employer. According to the office responsible for federal employee plans, the benefit is available through the Standard Option of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Federal Employee Program. A total of 24 federal employee health plans for 2024 offer enhanced IVF coverage, with varying benefits and cost-sharing.
"OPM's mission is to attract and retain the workforce of the future," press secretary Viet Tran said in a written response. He noted that surveys show federal health benefits influence employees' decisions to remain with the federal government.
However, it remains unclear how political debate over IVF and other reproductive health issues will affect national benefit and coverage trends.
Last month, after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF are children under state law, the state legislature quickly passed a bill, signed by Republican Governor Kay Ivey, granting immunity to patients and providers involved in IVF services. In the debate that followed, a coalition of more than a dozen anti-abortion groups signed a letter stating, "Science and logic have made clear that embryos must have the same rights as other human beings." Alabama's law did not resolve the issue of embryo "personhood," leaving room for further litigation and possible restrictions on IVF.
More than one-third of states legally recognize a fetus as a person at some stage of pregnancy, according to a Politico analysis.
It remains unclear whether the disruption caused by the Alabama case will have a long-term effect on employee benefits there or in other states.
"If this occurs in multiple states, employers will have to determine how to respond," said Jim Winkler, Chief Strategy Officer of the nonprofit Business Group on Health, which represents large employers. Winkler said employers should monitor the issue but are unlikely to plan changes for now.
A Mercer blog post recommends that employers review health plan policies involving medical travel and leave benefits. It also advises, "Employers should monitor other states that broadly define fetal personhood and restrict reproductive health care."
Dorianne Mason, Director of Health Equity at the National Women's Law Center, said that after the Alabama judges' decision, "State legislatures responded quickly to intense public opposition. Unlike abortion, the legislative response to IVF has moved in a markedly different direction regarding access to care."
Source:
Collected online