Quick Facts About Infertility Infertility is NOT an inconvenience; it is a disease of the reproductive system that impairs the body's ability to perform the basic function of reproduction.  Infertility affects about 6.1 million women and their partners in the U.S.  -- about ten percent of the reproductive-age population (Source: National Survey of Family Growth, CDC 1995).  Infertility affects men and women equally.  Most infertility cases -- 85% to 90% -- are treated with conventional medical therapies such as medication or surgery.  While vital for some patients, in vitro fertilization and similar treatments account for less than 3% of infertility services, and about (or approximately) seven hundredths of one percent (0.07%) of U.S. health care costs.

Pricey infertility care sparks insurance clash By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY Erin Davis loved her job at a major public relations firm. But she quit because her company's health insurance wouldn't help pay for the one thing she wanted even more — to become a mother. Davis and her husband were caught in an increasingly common dilemma — wanting their insurance to cover expensive treatments — even as health inflation is rising at its fastest clip in a decade and employers are looking to reduce spending and shift more costs to workers. For the Davises, the answer was to change jobs. Erin Davis found a company — one of only about 20% of large firms — whose insurance plan covers high-tech infertility treatments, some of which can cost $10,000 or more a try. In most states, such coverage is optional, leaving it up to the employer to decide. But, for the past decade, advocates have worked state-by-state to pass laws requiring insurers to cover infertility treatments — with 10 states now requiring some coverage. Similar proposals are now before Congress. States that require some infertility coverage During the past decade, advocates have worked state-by-state to pass laws requiring insurers to offer coverage for infertility treatments. States that require coverage of at least some infertility treatments: Arkansas Hawaii Illinois Maryland Massachusetts Montana New Jersey Ohio Rhode Island West Virginia   States that require insurers to offer coverage, but employers don't have to accept: California Connecticut New York Texas Source: National Conference of State Legislatures The debate over whether employers should be required to cover infertility treatment joins a handful of similar debates about coverage for mental illness, contraception and so-called lifestyle drugs, such as impotence pill Viagra. As demand for infertility treatment grows — estimates are that 10% of couples have some trouble conceiving, and new techniques are offering hope to many — so, too, does pressure on employers to add infertility coverage. The debate pits those who say infertility should be covered just as any other medical condition against those who argue that having children is an option rather than a right — one that should not be subsidized by employers or co-workers. "It's a little bit like passing the hat around to fellow employees," says Daryl Veach, national director of health actuarial services for Ernst & Young. "To me, it's ironic. Right alongside the story you run about states adding fertility benefits will be stories about health care costs being out of control." For couples who must pay for infertility treatment without help from insurers, financial issues add to the stress of an already emotional and often frustrating situation. After several years of trying — and about $800 of their own money for medical visits and artificial insemination — Davis and her husband, Frank, knew the next step would be to try much more costly fertility drugs and maybe in vitro fertilization (IVF), which can run $10,000 or more per attempt. "We knew realistically what our budget could tolerate," says Davis, 29, who lives near Kansas City. "That was a lot of money." Davis learned that telecommunications giant Sprint's health insurance covered four tries at IVF, in which eggs are removed, fertilized and placed back in the womb. So she quit her job with the PR firm and accepted a position with Sprint in February, even though it paid less. "If we end up having to go through two or three IVFs at $12,000 a shot, that's $36,000," Davis says. "That really adds up, but even with the salary change, I would come out ahead." Critics of mandatory infertility coverage say the issue could become the next battle over health care equity, as workers who don't use such services are asked to subsidize the cost for those who do. "Everything with childbearing comes down to what you can afford," says Scott Wenzel, a federal government worker who in his private life runs several Web sites devoted to what proponents call a child-free lifestyle. "If you on your own cannot afford infertility treatment, and it's not a threat to life, I don't see that it's an open invitation to other subscribers of that health plan to pay for that personal choice," Wenzel says. But many disagree. "The perception out there is that this is an optional treatment, like a tummy tuck or cosmetic surgery," says Tom Madden, owner of the Portland Professional Pharmacy in Maine, which sells infertility treatment medications. His state is one of several that considered passing laws requiring employers to cover infertility treatment. The law failed this year, but Madden says advocates will bring it back next year. "The right to have a family is no different than the right to chemotherapy so someone can live five more years to see a son or daughter graduate from high school," Madden says. Costs per employee vary Four states — California, Texas, New York and Connecticut — require insurers only to offer the coverage, but employers don't have to accept. Fifteen states debated infertility coverage this year. New Jersey was the only one to adopt a requirement. Employers generally oppose such requirements, calling them burdensome limits on their ability to design health coverage and control costs. Advocacy groups, such as the infertility support group Resolve, refer to studies showing that adding infertility coverage raises premiums by less than $3 per employee a year. Critics of the laws say other studies show higher costs, possibly $20 a year or more per employee. Even among those who have benefited from employer coverage, the debate is not clear-cut. Anne Collins Albimino and her husband, Sam, have twin 23-month-old daughters. They spent a roller-coaster four years trying various medical procedures to get pregnant, starting with very low-tech, inexpensive options. The first time they tried high-tech IVF, their employer covered part of the procedure, and they paid about $3,000. But it didn't work. The couple moved to Virginia for a new job, where the insurance plan did not pay for any infertility treatment. They seriously thought about not trying again. Then Sam took a job in Illinois, which is one of 10 states that require insurers to pay for infertility treatment. The second time they tried IVF, paid for by the insurance plan, Anne Collins became pregnant with the twins. The couple understand the arguments on both sides of the coverage debate. "We got lucky," says Anne Collins, 36, who now lives near Roanoke, Va. "It's hard for me to argue whether employers should pay for this or not. I know what life was like before and the roller coaster I was on and how happy I am now with two kids. On the other side, I can see how insurance companies are being asked to cover more and more things." Her husband says workplace policies covering such things as infertility treatment or mental health benefits, while possibly costly, pay off in improved morale and productivity. "Ultimately, employees will be more satisfied with their lives," he says. Among insurance policies offered by large employers, less than 20% cover IVF — and even fewer cover more advanced techniques, according to data gathered by benefits firm William M. Mercer. About half will cover an evaluation by a specialist and about one-third cover some types of drug therapy for infertility. Estimates of how much such coverage costs employers vary widely. In New Jersey, which just adopted a law requiring employers to cover infertility treatments, insurers are estimating that the new law will raise rates anywhere from 1% to 6%, says Mary Beth Mulligan, an analyst at William M. Mercer. When Mercer questioned the higher figures, many insurers lowered their estimates, says Mulligan, who says only 2% of the population is likely to require the more expensive, advanced techniques. "When you look at an entire population, it's not as all encompassing as some employers or insurers think," she says. A 1993 study in Massachusetts found that insurance coverage did lead to more use of infertility treatment and raised costs by about $1.71 per employee per month, or $20.52 a year. That would translate to about $205,200 for a large employer with 10,000 workers. Sprint makes a change Davis, who became pregnant on her second try at IVF and is expecting twins in June, says that as a conservative, she debated for a long time about whether employers should be required to pay for infertility treatment. What it came down to, she says, is "I just don't see infertility as any different than any other medical condition." Sprint recently changed its coverage, shifting from covering four IVF treatments per employer to covering a maximum of $25,000 worth of infertility treatment. Medications are covered under another policy with no limit. A Sprint spokesman says the change was made to make it easier to track the benefit — and was calculated based on an average maximum amount the company spent under its former policy. Veach at Ernst & Young says cost to employers varies depending on the age and other demographics of an employer's workforce. He has an unusual perspective on the issue. He's an actuary — and he's a father because he and his wife were able to get infertility treatment. After trying to conceive for about five years, his wife underwent an IVF procedure when she was 29 and became pregnant with a daughter, who is now 7. His wife's company paid for the procedure. When they tried again — twice — they didn't have coverage and paid for it themselves, at a cost of $20,000. On the second try, they were successful and now have a son, who is 4. Veach says he thinks employers and workers should split the cost 50-50. "It's hard to afford this process," he concedes, "but it's a very small fraction of the total cost of raising a child. If you're not willing to make some financial commitment to having a child, are you willing to make the sacrifices later when you do have a child?" For lower-wage workers, the difficulty of affording IVF may be insurmountable, he acknowledges. But requiring employers to fully cover infertility treatment may raise the cost of health care for everyone at the company. "It's not like the co-workers are wealthy, either," Veach says. "If co-workers help you pay for infertility treatment, will you help pay for their Viagra? Where does it end? Everyone could end up with nothing because no one can afford it. "

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION - WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!

Go to http://www.petitiononline.com/FI200507/petition.html


To:  U.S. Congress

We, the undersigned, urge you to co-sponsor and/or support the Family Building Act of 2005 (H.R. 735). This act will amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code to require that all health plans cover the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Infertility treatments include ovulation induction, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and other "non-experimental" treatments. You may view the bill in its entirety by visiting http://thomas.loc.gov and searching for H.R. 735.

By supporting the Family Building Act of 2005 (HR.735) you would help millions of Americans. Infertility is a disease that affects over 6.1 million people, approximately 10% of the population of reproductive age. For most, raising a family is one of the most basic human desires. Unfortunately the infertile population are frequently denied insurance coverage for their disease. Insurance companies either do not offer coverage or have infertility riders, which employers can opt to decline. Depending on a couple's financial means, infertile Americans either do not get treatment or spend years with both financial and emotional stress in an attempt to conceive.

Historically, insurance companies did not offer coverage, because infertility treatments, such as IVF, were considered experimental and not highly effective. Now in 2005, IVF and other reproductive technologies have been in use for over 20 years. More than 72,000 babies have been born in the United States using assisted reproductive technologies since 1980. Advanced Reproductive Technology (ART)is no longer experimental and can be extremely effective in conceiving a child. Why then are insurance companies permitted to omit coverage for our reproductive systems, when they are required to offer coverage for our other critical health needs?

We, the people who have signed this petition, believe that the government and insurance companies have denied us vital medical coverage for infertility long enough. We believe that H.R. 389 should be made into law to aid us in early diagnosis and treatment of this disease. Please pass H.R. 389 so that we all have the opportunity to fulfill our basic human desire to become parents.



Thank You

Sincerely,

A "Little" Depression Setting in

I think that I am starting to become a little depressed.

I feel as if I am wasting money and I am getting nothing accomplished.  Not to mention that it is taking a personal toll on me. I am trying to stay positive, though..

My husband has mentioned and wanted to talk to me about how I feel, but I don't to talk to him or anyone else.

Even my boss said to me, are you ok? You look tired..

I am.

I am barely sleeping at night now. I cry quite a bit to myself off and on. This time it is going to take a bit longer for me to pull myself together.

I guess I am worried. Worried that I will never have children.. and scared of the fact that if I have another unsuccessful IUI I will have to start more aggressive treatments like IVF and

only God knows how I am going to afford that.

I am angry because I feel as if I waited too long..  I am angry at myself.  I think that I am going to throw myself in a hobby to lift my spirits.. and get my mind off of this.

I am really angry.   I think if this doesn't work this time, I am going to look for another doc. The doctor I have right now, I can't afford his IVF rates.

THE SECOND ATTEMPT UNSUCCESSFUL

This morning, I cried.

I took a pregnancy test for this round of IUI and it came out NEGATIVE again.

At this point I don't know what to do.. I contacted the doctor and I am going to have a consultation with him..

I think I will try one more time..

After that.. I guess IVF?

I am getting in so much debt.   I have been applying for another second job again to offset the costs.

Today I am depressed.  I just don't understand..

I had a little bleeding not much on day 9th after my IUI and it said in a book that this occurs... day 7 -9..

My breasts have been so sore and really hurting. I feel completely different from the first time. I haven't cramped a lot or anything.

My body is acting so crazy now, I can't read any of its signs any longer.

I just dont know what to do..


meds are 130.00
iui 975
plus sperm costs - free or not...



TOTAL AMOUNT IN DEBT - paid for meds out of my pocket - what I have to pay off???

$2950.00

STILL WAITING

Still Waiting.

I am scared to test myself.

Gosh.

My birthday is coming up on the 9th and that would be a great birthday present.  I will probably wait another week before I test..