Here's a good debate: IF treatments covered by Ins, what about

Temp552270562505132

Adoption?  My mom was just telling me how she got a letter from her health ins. stating that now IF treatments (IVF) were covered and even though she wasn't in the market, she thought it was good that they were doing this.  So that got me thinking- if women can have help from insurance to have a baby using fertility treatments, shouldn't they also be able to have help from insurance to adopt too?  I mean... that's also another way to accomplish the goal of starting a family. 

I'm not sure what I think.  I mean I kind of think it should be covered.  I'm thinking- ok what about the skyrocketing costs of premiums already....

so, what do you guys think?

rhode island is neitha a rhode nor an eeeeyyyeeeelandddd. *tawk amongst yahselves*

britti<3

I don't think either should really be covered, if they are (and i know nothing about it) I think there should be a limit it covers...like with eye exams lol.

adamwife

It makes sense that if they cover IVF they should cover adoptions. 

ETA - I agree with britt.

houndbaby

My previous employer had an adoption assistance program, I think it covered some of the costs and gave paid time off the same as you get after childbirth.

LuLu38

IF is not covered for the most part. Some basic bloodwork, etc., is covered.  Insurance is moving towards more coverage though.   

LucyPevensie

Infertility is a medical issue that requires medical treatment.  Most other medical issues are covered by insurance - this should be too.  And FWIW - your premiums go up more due to the fact that infertility treatment typically ISN'T covered - so women are forced to try treatments that have a greater chance of ending up in multiple births - requiring more trips to specialists, perinatologists, time in the NICU, etc., etc. - hundreds of thousands in medical costs which likely could be avoided if infertility treatments were covered - and doctors and patients could focus more on trying to help women have ONE baby at a time (and to be clear - this is already the goal with infertility treatments - but the lack of insurance coverage plays a role in multiple births.)

rouge411

I don't think medical insurance should cover adoptions... but I think some employers have some adoption-related benefits. And insurance coverage for IF usually has limits (usually X number of procedures must lead to a successful live birth for more attempts to be covered.)

carlab44

I see your point, but adoption isn't a medical procedure so I'm not sure how or why insurance would cover it.?

Temp552270562505132

LuLu38:

IF is not covered for the most part. Some basic bloodwork, etc., is covered.  Insurance is moving towards more coverage though.   

my mom just got a letter from her ins. (bcbs which is pretty big) that states they now cover IF treatments up to and including IVF procedures.

Quazel

LucyPevensie:

Infertility is a medical issue that requires medical treatment. 

I have to disagree with this.  It does not require medical treatment unless you want to have a family.  Just like adopting, it is not required unless you want to have a family.  In many cases, adopting would be cheaper for the insurance.  I think there should be a cap and it should be paid out to IF or adoption services.  My bf adopted, IF wasn't an option for her, she is just as entitled to family planning help as someone who had IF.

mrskadams

I definitely think IF should be covered under insurance.  It's terribly sad for those women who want to have babies so badly but can't because they can't afford treatments.  Those of us who can have children should thank our lucky stars.  Personally I don't mind paying  extra for IF treatments, if that's the case, for women to be blessed with a child.  Now adoption I don't think should be covered under insurance since technically they are not receiving medical treatment; however, I wish there was another way they could get assistance.

Temp552270562505132

LucyPevensie:

Infertility is a medical issue that requires medical treatment.  Most other medical issues are covered by insurance - this should be too.  And FWIW - your premiums go up more due to the fact that infertility treatment typically ISN'T covered - so women are forced to try treatments that have a greater chance of ending up in multiple births - requiring more trips to specialists, perinatologists, time in the NICU, etc., etc. - hundreds of thousands in medical costs which likely could be avoided if infertility treatments were covered - and doctors and patients could focus more on trying to help women have ONE baby at a time (and to be clear - this is already the goal with infertility treatments - but the lack of insurance coverage plays a role in multiple births.)

that makes a lot of sense.  i DO think that ins. should cover IF stuff.  i was actually shocked that my mom got that letter bc i thought IF stuff was covered anyway

vhab

DH's boss adopted last year, and while they didn't get any money from insurance, they did get a LARGE sum (almost all in fact) of the money they spent on the adoption back on their taxes this year.  Not to mention that the adoption itself is not a medical procedure, and IF treatment is.  My insurance does not cover IF, but a few years back a partner in the co I work for had it added for his family, and it nearly trippled the premiums my boss pays, for everyone.  He was PO'd.

karenmarie20

mrskadams:

I definitely think IF should be covered under insurance.  It's terribly sad for those women who want to have babies so badly but can't because they can't afford treatments.  Those of us who can have children should thank our lucky stars.  Personally I don't mind paying  extra for IF treatments, if that's the case, for women to be blessed with a child.  Now adoption I don't think should be covered under insurance since technically they are not receiving medical treatment; however, I wish there was another way they could get assistance.

Well said. 

LucyPevensie

Quazel:

LucyPevensie:

Infertility is a medical issue that requires medical treatment. 

I have to disagree with this.  It does not require medical treatment unless you want to have a family.  Just like adopting, it is not required unless you want to have a family.  In many cases, adopting would be cheaper for the insurance.  I think there should be a cap and it should be paid out to IF or adoption services.  My bf adopted, IF wasn't an option for her, she is just as entitled to family planning help as someone who had IF.

The number of medical issues which do not "require" medical treatment - but ARE covered - are too numerous to list.  Your tubal ligation ... your IUD ... your husband's vasectomy ... your husband's erectile dysfunction ...  your sore throat ... your physical therapy for a mild pain in your leg ... I could go on ... and on ... and on.  If something is wrong with my knee - and I go to the doctor for treatment - it's covered.  If something is wrong with my ovary - and I go to the doctor for treatment - that too should be covered. 

mrskadams

LucyPevensie:

Quazel:

LucyPevensie:

Infertility is a medical issue that requires medical treatment. 

I have to disagree with this.  It does not require medical treatment unless you want to have a family.  Just like adopting, it is not required unless you want to have a family.  In many cases, adopting would be cheaper for the insurance.  I think there should be a cap and it should be paid out to IF or adoption services.  My bf adopted, IF wasn't an option for her, she is just as entitled to family planning help as someone who had IF.

The number of medical issues which do not "require" medical treatment - but ARE covered - are too numerous to list.  Your tubal ligation ... your IUD ... your husband's vasectomy ... your husband's erectile dysfunction ...  your sore throat ... your physical therapy for a mild pain in your leg ... I could go on ... and on ... and on.  If something is wrong with my knee - and I go to the doctor for treatment - it's covered.  If something is wrong with my ovary - and I go to the doctor for treatment - that too should be covered. 

This x 1000.  I would hate for the idea of "choosing" to have a family be treated in such a cavalier manner.

Temp552270562505132

mrskadams:

LucyPevensie:

Quazel:

LucyPevensie:

Infertility is a medical issue that requires medical treatment. 

I have to disagree with this.  It does not require medical treatment unless you want to have a family.  Just like adopting, it is not required unless you want to have a family.  In many cases, adopting would be cheaper for the insurance.  I think there should be a cap and it should be paid out to IF or adoption services.  My bf adopted, IF wasn't an option for her, she is just as entitled to family planning help as someone who had IF.

The number of medical issues which do not "require" medical treatment - but ARE covered - are too numerous to list.  Your tubal ligation ... your IUD ... your husband's vasectomy ... your husband's erectile dysfunction ...  your sore throat ... your physical therapy for a mild pain in your leg ... I could go on ... and on ... and on.  If something is wrong with my knee - and I go to the doctor for treatment - it's covered.  If something is wrong with my ovary - and I go to the doctor for treatment - that too should be covered. 

This x 1000.  I would hate for the idea of "choosing" to have a family be treated in such a cavalier manner.

yep totally.

 

naflmj

Quazel:

LucyPevensie:

Infertility is a medical issue that requires medical treatment. 

I have to disagree with this.  It does not require medical treatment unless you want to have a family.  Just like adopting, it is not required unless you want to have a family.  In many cases, adopting would be cheaper for the insurance.  I think there should be a cap and it should be paid out to IF or adoption services.  My bf adopted, IF wasn't an option for her, she is just as entitled to family planning help as someone who had IF.

 

This is the most rediculous thing I have seen. You are right, if you don't want a family it's a non issue but it is a woman's right to have a child and if her or her DH did not have a medical condition, they would be able to just like everyone else in this world. Since infertility is a medical condition, it is rediculous that it not be treated just like any other condition. It's like saying Chemo is only necessary if someone wants to live.

naflmj

mrskadams:

LucyPevensie:

Quazel:

LucyPevensie:

Infertility is a medical issue that requires medical treatment. 

I have to disagree with this.  It does not require medical treatment unless you want to have a family.  Just like adopting, it is not required unless you want to have a family.  In many cases, adopting would be cheaper for the insurance.  I think there should be a cap and it should be paid out to IF or adoption services.  My bf adopted, IF wasn't an option for her, she is just as entitled to family planning help as someone who had IF.

Well said, thank you!

The number of medical issues which do not "require" medical treatment - but ARE covered - are too numerous to list.  Your tubal ligation ... your IUD ... your husband's vasectomy ... your husband's erectile dysfunction ...  your sore throat ... your physical therapy for a mild pain in your leg ... I could go on ... and on ... and on.  If something is wrong with my knee - and I go to the doctor for treatment - it's covered.  If something is wrong with my ovary - and I go to the doctor for treatment - that too should be covered. 

This x 1000.  I would hate for the idea of "choosing" to have a family be treated in such a cavalier manner.

gringa78

Quazel:

LucyPevensie:

Infertility is a medical issue that requires medical treatment. 

I have to disagree with this.  It does not require medical treatment unless you want to have a family.  Just like adopting, it is not required unless you want to have a family.  In many cases, adopting would be cheaper for the insurance.  I think there should be a cap and it should be paid out to IF or adoption services.  My bf adopted, IF wasn't an option for her, she is just as entitled to family planning help as someone who had IF.

Wow, are you spoiled.

Gina070605

LucyPevensie:

Infertility is a medical issue that requires medical treatment.  Most other medical issues are covered by insurance - this should be too.  And FWIW - your premiums go up more due to the fact that infertility treatment typically ISN'T covered - so women are forced to try treatments that have a greater chance of ending up in multiple births - requiring more trips to specialists, perinatologists, time in the NICU, etc., etc. - hundreds of thousands in medical costs which likely could be avoided if infertility treatments were covered - and doctors and patients could focus more on trying to help women have ONE baby at a time (and to be clear - this is already the goal with infertility treatments - but the lack of insurance coverage plays a role in multiple births.)

^ this exactly.  It is so very difficult to not only have to deal with being IF, but then you have to some how come up with thousands of dollars just so you can be on a level playing ground.  For the people who either choose to adopt, or are forced to do so, I believe they should have the same type of insurance coverage.  

I wanted to say thank you to all the women who "stuck up" for all of us Infertiles out there...