Cited by 94Reproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Health and ContraceptionHealthcare Policy and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Fertility—a human right worthy of mandated insurance coverage: the evolution, limitations, and future of access to care

Open access
Kawwass, Jennifer F., Penzias, Alan S., Adashi, Eli Y.·2021·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

We review the history, current status, and potential future of state infertility mandates and focus on the business implications of mandates and on the inadequacies and reproductive injustice resulting from gaps between legislative intent and practical implementation. Nineteen states have passed laws that require insurers to either cover or offer coverage for infertility diagnoses and treatment. The qualifications for coverage, extent of coverage, and exemptions vary drastically from one state to another, resulting in deficiencies in access to care even within mandated states for certain groups, such as single individuals, patients in same-sex relationships, and patients pursuing fertility preservation. Although insurance coverage of fertility services in the United States has expanded as an increasing number of states have enacted infertility mandates, significant gaps in implementation and access remain even among states with existing mandates. Provider, patient, and legislative advocacy is warranted in the name of reproductive justice to expand insurance coverage and, in turn, maximize reproductive outcomes, which have been shown to improve as financial barriers are lifted.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.155

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. International Conference on Population and Development. In. Cairo, Egypt, 1994. Available at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Population_and_Development
  2. Zegers-Hochschild, 2009, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009, Fertil Steril, 92, 1520, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009 · DOI
  3. Boulet, 2015, Embryo transfer practices and perinatal outcomes by insurance mandate status, Fertil Steril, 104, 403, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.05.015 · DOI
  4. Kissin, 2016, Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance and Research Team. Fertility treatments in the United States: improving access and outcomes, Obstet Gynecol, 128, 387, 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001419 · DOI
  5. Griffin, 1998, The economic cost of infertility-related services: an examination of the Massachusetts infertility insurance mandate, Fertil Steril, 70, 22, 10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00107-1 · DOI
  6. Hidlebaugh, 1997, Cost of assisted reproductive technologies for a health maintenance organization, J Reprod Med, 42, 570
  7. Jain, 2002, Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization, N Engl J Med, 347, 661, 10.1056/NEJMsa013491 · DOI
  8. Insogna, 2018, Infertility, inequality, and how lack of insurance coverage compromises reproductive autonomy, AMA J Ethics, 20, E1152, 10.1001/amajethics.2018.1152 · DOI
  9. Martin, 2011, Insurance coverage and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a U.S. perspective, Fertil Steril, 95, 964, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.06.030 · DOI
  10. Provost, 2016, State insurance mandates and multiple birth rates after in vitro fertilization, Obstet Gynecol, 128, 1205, 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001733 · DOI
  11. Omurtag, 2009, Economic implications of insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization in the United States: a review, J Reprod Med, 54, 661
  12. Menzel, 2011, The cultural moral right to a basic minimum of accessible health care, Kennedy Inst Ethics J, 21, 79, 10.1353/ken.2011.0003 · DOI
  13. Adashi, 2016, Access to and use of infertility services in the United States: framing the challenges, Fertil Steril, 105, 1113, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.017 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Johnston, 2013, Why we should all pay for fertility treatment: an argument from ethics and policy, Hastings Cent Rep, 43, 18, 10.1002/hast.155 · DOI
  15. Adashi, 2018, Against all odds: the first state infertility mandate (Maryland), Fertil Steril, 110, 824, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.07.012 · DOI
  16. Association RNI. Infertility Coverage by State. In. Vol. 2020, 2020. Available at: https://resolve.org/what-are-my-options/insurance-coverage/infertility-coverage-state/. Accessed August 4, 2020.
  17. Blake, 2011, It's an art not a science: state-mandated insurance coverage of assisted reproductive technologies and legal implications for gay and unmarried persons, Minnesota J Law Sci Tech, 12
  18. Liu JJ, Adashi EY. Selective justice: state mandates for assisted reproductive technology and reproductive justice. In, 2013. Available at: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:34571202. Accessed August 4, 2020.
  19. Kyweluk, 2019, Fertility preservation legislation in the United States: potential implications for transgender individuals, LGBT Health, 6, 331, 10.1089/lgbt.2019.0017 · DOI
  20. Learmonth, 2018, Barriers to insurance coverage for transgender patients, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 219, 272.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.046 · DOI
  21. Dupree, 2016, Inequity between male and female coverage in state infertility laws, Fertil Steril, 105, 1519, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.025 · DOI
  22. Burns, 2018, Fertility preservation options in pediatric and adolescent patients with cancer, Cancer, 124, 1867, 10.1002/cncr.31255 · DOI
  23. Campo-Engelstein, 2010, For the sake of consistency and fairness: why insurance companies should cover fertility preservation treatment for iatrogenic infertility, Cancer Treat Res, 156, 381, 10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_29 · DOI
  24. Cardozo, 2017, Mandating coverage for fertility preservation: a step in the right direction, N Engl J Med, 377, 1607, 10.1056/NEJMp1709585 · DOI
  25. Walter, 2017, A call for fertility preservation coverage for breast cancer patients: the cost of consistency, J Natl Cancer Inst, 109, 10.1093/jnci/djx006 · DOI
  26. Sax, 2020, Inconsistent mandated access to fertility preservation: a review of relevant state legislation, Obstet Gynecol, 135, 848, 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003758 · DOI
  27. Oktay, 2018, Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update, J Clin Oncol, 36, 1994, 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.1914 · DOI
  28. Young, 2019, Fertility counseling before cancer treatment and subsequent reproductive concerns among female adolescent and young adult cancer survivors, Cancer, 125, 980, 10.1002/cncr.31862 · DOI
  29. Korkidakis, 2019, Patterns of referral for fertility preservation among female adolescents and young adults with breast cancer: a population-based study, J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol, 8, 197, 10.1089/jayao.2018.0102 · DOI
  30. Chin, 2016, Which female cancer patients fail to receive fertility counseling before treatment in the state of Georgia?, Fertil Steril, 106, 1763, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.034 · DOI
  31. Flink, 2017, A review of the oncology patient's challenges for utilizing fertility preservation services, J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol, 6, 31, 10.1089/jayao.2015.0065 · DOI
  32. Preservation AfF. Fertility Preservation: State Laws and Legislation. In. Vol. 2020, 2020. Available at: https://www.allianceforfertilitypreservation.org/advocacy/state-legislation. Accessed August 4, 2020.
  33. 2016, Electronic address AAO, Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive M. Financial "risk-sharing" or refund programs in assisted reproduction: an Ethics Committee opinion, Fertil Steril, 106, e8, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.003 · DOI
  34. Boulet, 2019, US state-level infertility insurance mandates and health plan expenditures on infertility treatments, Matern Child Health J, 23, 623, 10.1007/s10995-018-2675-y · DOI
  35. Dieke, 2017, Disparities in assisted reproductive technology utilization by race and ethnicity, United States, 2014: a commentary, J Womens Health (Larchmt), 26, 605, 10.1089/jwh.2017.6467 · DOI
  36. Jones, 2009, Strategies for designing an efficient insurance fertility benefit: a 21st century approach, Fertil Steril, 91, 2295, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.006 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kawwass, J. F., Penzias, A. S., & Adashi, E. Y.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Kawwass, Jennifer F.
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
115
Issue
1
Pages
29-42
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3111517682
Cited by
94
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 7
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
health insurance coverage, infertility treatment, reproductive justice, access to fertility care, state legislation, fertility preservation, same-sex couples, single people, financial barriers to care
MeSH terms
Sexual and Gender Minorities, Female, Fertility, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Infertility, Insurance, Health, Male, Pregnancy, United States, Insurance Coverage, Mandatory Programs, Reproductive Rights, History, 21st Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review