Potential HT: S/O of the IF Coverage

silliestbunny

IF coverage... should it be mandated? 

Curious what others in the adoption world think of it?

FWIW-  it would not have changed our plans....

DebateThis

Yes, I think it should be covered for everything including IVF, but I'd also like to see more relief for adoptive parents in the form of tax breaks and parental leave mandates. I think we'd see a lot less high order multiples if IF coverage were mandated and people weren't forced to make cheaper/more desperate decisions regarding IF treatments.

We just started IF treatments but w/ my medical history, adoption has been a reality for us for quite awhile. The only thing that not having IF coverage would have done was speed up our timeline for moving to adoption.

 

bhead81

DebateThis:

Yes, I think it should be covered for everything including IVF, but I'd also like to see more relief for adoptive parents in the form of tax breaks and parental leave mandates. I think we'd see a lot less high order multiples if IF coverage were mandated and people weren't forced to make cheaper/more desperate decisions regarding IF treatments.

We just started IF treatments but w/ my medical history, adoption has been a reality for us for quite awhile. The only thing that not having IF coverage would have done was speed up our timeline for moving to adoption.

 

I would like to see IF coverage be available to everyone regardless of the state they live in.  Now, that is not to say it should be free but at least give everyone the option to purchase the rider if it is not included. 

I also agree with you that adoption should have better tax breaks for individuals.  To take it a step further I would like to see adoption get the same benefits as birth.  Company's should view adoption as birth and give the exact same time off, PTO packages and STD. 

We always knew we wanted to adopt so it wouldn't have changed my mind to adopt but the cost of both did cause us to have to choose IVF or adoption.  We might try IVF later but if we choose IVF it will cause us to not afford another adoption.  I hate that it has to be one or the other.

inlovewithB

I don't know! I have mixed emotions about this and don't have the energy to type them all out at the moment. Healthcare in our country is such a mess. We own a small business and pay $12,000 a year for health insurance for our family of three and that doesn't include what we pay towards our employees premiums. I can't imagine what adding IF coverage to the mix would do to our premiums. As a business owner I can't afford to pay for my employees to have IF coverage. If we were required to do so we would probably have to fire people and just reduce our case load down to what we could handle on our own.

artletzler

We had IF coverage in our health plan up to a max allowance, seems fair.  We chose to change our path to adoption before we even came close to our max.  Seems like it was a good policy though - you could chose to skip the small procedures and go straight to IVF and have a portion covered by insurance. 

I too agree that there should be more support of adoption taxes and mandated leave support. 

The part that is killing me right now in trying to plan my leave is that if I were pregnant, I could claim short term disability to assist with my leave & with adoption I have nothing other than our savings (which is being wiped out by said adoption).  I do understand the difference, but it's a hard pill to swallow at the same time.

julandjo

No I do not think it should be mandated.  In general, I think only life-saving, necessary corrective, and basic preventative care (i.e. vaccines) should be mandated.  Anything "elective" like fertility treatment, birth control, etc. is, IMO, elective - you don't have to have it to live - and should not be forced on carriers.  It would price way too many employers out of even offering insurance.

zookbride

bhead81:

I would like to see IF coverage be available to everyone regardless of the state they live in.  Now, that is not to say it should be free but at least give everyone the option to purchase the rider if it is not included. 

I also agree with you that adoption should have better tax breaks for individuals.  To take it a step further I would like to see adoption get the same benefits as birth.  Company's should view adoption as birth and give the exact same time off, PTO packages and STD. 

We always knew we wanted to adopt so it wouldn't have changed my mind to adopt but the cost of both did cause us to have to choose IVF or adoption.  We might try IVF later but if we choose IVF it will cause us to not afford another adoption.  I hate that it has to be one or the other.

I agree with bolded. I don't have a problem with paying an extra premium monthly to have IF coverage. I find it fair, actually. I mean obviously IF treatments are expensive so I have no problem paying a little more to have that coverage. IF should most definitely be mandated to be covered, it is a disease just like any other disease that is covered.

I also agree that there should be more benefits for adoptive parents. As a person dealing with IF and also wanting to adopt in the future, I wish they would make it easier b/c both IF treatments and adopting is SO expensive and  tiring.

 

baze2

inlovewithB:

I don't know! I have mixed emotions about this and don't have the energy to type them all out at the moment. Healthcare in our country is such a mess. We own a small business and pay $12,000 a year for health insurance for our family of three and that doesn't include what we pay towards our employees premiums. I can't imagine what adding IF coverage to the mix would do to our premiums. As a business owner I can't afford to pay for my employees to have IF coverage. If we were required to do so we would probably have to fire people and just reduce our case load down to what we could handle on our own.

Same here..although we can't afford insurance for our employees. SO I can't imagine what it would be for the IF package..I say no..I hate to say this..but some IF treatments can be afforded out of pocket. (Flame away). In a world where iphones are the norm, internet is mandatory, Louis Vitton purses are everywhere, IF could be budgeted in to the mix for most people.

 

Jenn is Silly

I have so many thoughts on this.

Here's the thing, I think the cost of IF treatments stems from a larger issue- just like anything else, it's a business.  When I compare the cost of IVF from state to state it makes me sick.  In my state a single attempt at IVF is going to put your right around $20K.  A former employee of mine paid that for a package involving 4 total attempts (2 fresh egg retrievals and 2 frozen egg transfers).  $5K a shot for IVF- IMO- isn't a horrible deal, and seems reasonable out of pocket.

I think that there are so many bigger issues with health care in this country that adding insurance coverage for IF is just a band aide.  The bigger issue is that HC is a beast- with for profit companies driving it, putting whatever price they want on it because they can.

I agree that there should be tax credits/breaks for adoption.  I also think that there need to be better mandates in place for the care of newborns (bio and adopted).  I see way to many itty bitty babies in my daughters day care because their parents simply can't afford to take a 12 week leave (which IMO isn't even enough).

I do NOT agree however that adoptive parents should be able to take Short Term Disability- and for the record I find that companies (and the one I work for falls in this boat) that use STD as a "maternity benefit" are pathetic.  Short Term Disability is in place for individuals who are temporarily unable to work due to injury/surgery/illness.  Mothers who birth babies only qualify for 6 weeks (vaginal) or 8 weeks (c-section).  This is not a benefit provided to care for a child, it is a benefit provided to heal from a surgery/medical situation.  Again, this is a bandaide on a bigger problem.

Basically, the US has basically missed the boat on medical benefits/leaves/and insurance coverage.  This is what happens when the medical industry and Health Care industries are unregulated (speaking business here not like practice/FDA stuff) and a capitalistic marketplace.  

cogbot

julandjo:

No I do not think it should be mandated.  In general, I think only life-saving, necessary corrective, and basic preventative care (i.e. vaccines) should be mandated.  Anything "elective" like fertility treatment, birth control, etc. is, IMO, elective - you don't have to have it to live - and should not be forced on carriers.  It would price way too many employers out of even offering insurance.

 

I agree.  

I'm most likely going to get flamed for this, but my inability to conceive should not be a financial burden on tax payers. 

Go_Dawgs

julandjo:

No I do not think it should be mandated.  In general, I think only life-saving, necessary corrective, and basic preventative care (i.e. vaccines) should be mandated.  Anything "elective" like fertility treatment, birth control, etc. is, IMO, elective - you don't have to have it to live - and should not be forced on carriers.  It would price way too many employers out of even offering insurance.

THIS.  My health insurance policy doesn't even have MATERNITY coverage, much less coverage for infertility treatment.  If I did get KU, we'd have to pay for all prenatal care and labor and delivery, even a c-section, out of pocket.  We have also paid some pretty astronomical monthly premiums - like over $1,000 per month for our family of three for pretty mediocre coverage.  We had to up our deductible and maximum out of pocket to make our monthly premium affordable for us.  And by upping our maximum out of pocket, I mean that our max out of pocket is $16,000 PER PERSON.  So if all three of us were in a car wreck and had big medical bills resulting from it, we could potentially be responsible for $48,000 of those bills out of our own pocket.  We pay $500 just for an ER visit.  This is with pretty bare bones coverage - no infertility treatment at all (just diagnosing), no maternity coverage, no weight loss surgery, etc.  Mandating coverage for things that aren't absolutely necessary will just make health insurance even more unaffordable, and we already have enough uninsured people in this country.

We have millions of people who don't even have coverage to care for their heart condition, diabetes, etc - treatment they need to stay alive.  When there are so many who don't even have their basic health needs met, I certainly don't support any mandate for something that isn't truly necessary that will just jack up the cost of health coverage.

That said, I'm all for tax breaks for both infertility treatment and adoption. 

PrincessShay80

We had IF coverage on our health insurance, but it only covered a certain amount, which did cover 2 ivf cycles and all the meds, but we still had about 4k that we had to pay out of pocket for both cycles. I think it should be mandated for every state and every policy- but only if there is a medical need for it- like a diagnosed low sperm count or PCOS- something like that. 

 

As for more adoption relief they just need to approve the tax credit for years to come- and maybe make it so agencies have a set price range- I find it so interesting ow one peson pays 15k for an adoptions and someone else pays 30k for the same domestic adoption, why is there such a difference- there needs to be more control over that- in terms of agency fees and placement fees. 

 

We had ivf coverage but we would have done everything before moving onto adoption, that was our rule when we set out on this journey- we will do everything medically possible if ha fails then we will move onto adoption. After 3 failed IUI's and 2 failed ivf's and 2 miscarriages I was done and ready to move on.  

PrincessShay80

cogbot:

julandjo:

No I do not think it should be mandated.  In general, I think only life-saving, necessary corrective, and basic preventative care (i.e. vaccines) should be mandated.  Anything "elective" like fertility treatment, birth control, etc. is, IMO, elective - you don't have to have it to live - and should not be forced on carriers.  It would price way too many employers out of even offering insurance.

 

I agree.  

I'm most likely going to get flamed for this, but my inability to conceive should not be a financial burden on tax payers. 

We are paying for a lot of poor health choices that people are making. 

DebateThis

PrincessShay80:

cogbot:

julandjo:

No I do not think it should be mandated.  In general, I think only life-saving, necessary corrective, and basic preventative care (i.e. vaccines) should be mandated.  Anything "elective" like fertility treatment, birth control, etc. is, IMO, elective - you don't have to have it to live - and should not be forced on carriers.  It would price way too many employers out of even offering insurance.

 

I agree.  

I'm most likely going to get flamed for this, but my inability to conceive should not be a financial burden on tax payers. 

We are paying for a lot of poor health choices that people are making. 

Agreed. Smoking, heart disease, and obesity related diseases cost a fortune - and a LOT more than infertility coverage would cost.