CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Reproductive Health and TechnologiesHealthcare Policy and ManagementReproductive Health and Contraception

Infertility Insurance Mandates and Fertility

Schmidt, Lucie·2005·American Economic Review
DOI 10.1257/000282805774670086
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Infertility is considered by the medical community to be a disease of the reproductive system. It currently affects over 6 million individuals, and one in ten couples cannot conceive without medical assistance. The psychological effects of infertility have been compared to the effects of other diseases such as cancer and heart disease (e.g., Anne T. Fidler and Judith Bernstein, 1999), and the financial costs of treatment can be quite large. However, only 25 percent of all health-plan sponsors provide coverage for infertility services. In response to a perceived need for coverage, legislation was introduced at the federal level in 2003 that would require health plans to provide infertility benefits. As the fraction of the population affected by infertility continues to rise, there are likely to be continued efforts to mandate coverage. Understanding the costs and benefits of these policies thus becomes increasingly important. The first component of a full analysis is to determine whether these mandates will actually have an effect on fertility. By reducing the price of infertility treatment, one might expect to see an increase in utilization of treatments. This could be true if the mandate expands access to individuals who previously could not afford treatment, or if individuals who were previously receiving treatment now choose to consume higher quantities (or a higher quality) of treatment. However, it is also possible that these mandates have no effect on access or on treatment consumed but simply provide windfall gains to those individuals who would have purchased treatment in the absence of insurance coverage. Finally, mandates may also have dynamic effects on the timing of births. Individuals could seek treatment earlier, which is beneficial from a medical perspective. Alternatively, individuals could further delay childbearing, with the knowledge that they will ultimately be covered. In this paper, I ask the first-order question of whether the mandated insurance coverage of infertility treatment has affected birth rates. As of 2003, 15 states have enacted some form of infertility insurance mandate. Using a differencein-differences approach, I exploit variation in the enactment of mandates both across states and over time and identify control groups that should not have been affected by infertility coverage. My results suggest that the mandates increase firstbirth rates for women over age 35 by 32 percent.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/000282805774670086

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schmidt, L.
Affiliations
Williams College (US)
Corresponding author
Schmidt, Lucie
ORCID
Schmidt, Lucie
Venue
American Economic Review
Publisher
American Economic Association
Published
2005-04-01
Volume
95
Issue
2
Pages
204-208
ISSN
0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1257/000282805774670086
OpenAlex
W2007286461
Cited by
32
References
15
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
infertility treatment, fertility, birth rate, health insurance coverage, state legislation, women over 35, treatment utilization, birth timing, childbearing decisions
MeSH terms
Birth Rate, Black or African American, Female, Fertility, Health Policy, Humans, Infertility, Insurance, Health, United States, Insurance Coverage, Reproductive Health Services, Black People, White People

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