Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Coakley v Brown re: “socially infertile”

By

From an Austrailian article entitled 'Socially infertile' may cause IVF overload:  

DOCTORS fear fertility clinics will struggle to cope with a surge in demand and patients could face lengthy delays in treatment as hundreds of single women and lesbians seek IVF following changes to Victorian legislation. Specialists expect that about 1000 women previously excluded from IVF because they were considered ''socially infertile'' will access treatment each year following a change to the law on January 1….  Other changes in the legislation allow lesbian couples to list the non-biological mother as a parent on their child's birth certificate, giving them more legal rights.  Gay and lesbian groups have welcomed the new laws but are angry that single women and lesbians will be eligible for Medicare rebates on fertility treatment only if they are diagnosed as medically infertile.

I meant to make this poll a multi-vote poll, but I can’t fix it once it’s posted.  But maybe it will still work if we assume that voting for PGD coverage includes socially infertile coverage, etc.  Maybe David can change it to multivote for me?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. many people might feel that medically infertile couples should be covered

    <

    p>Your poll results suggest they might not be true. So perhaps the first question is whether medically infertile couples should have a right as against their insurers to IVF treatment.

    <

    p>TedF

    • I meant to make it a multivote poll, darn.  Interesting that people are voting that way, I wonder if they know that Massachuestts is one of nine states that mandates coverage for IVF already.

      FINDINGS
      Nearly 100 different benefit mandates are on the books
      in various states. Most target specific areas rather than
      define a comprehensive insurance policy. For example,
      many of the mandates apply to specific preventive care
      services or parity among different types of care.
      Based on our analysis, most of the state-mandated
      benefits would be included in a national standard for
      benefits that is broad in scope and includes preventive
      care, mental health care, care for women and children,
      and prescription medications. Indeed, very few state
      mandates go beyond what is included in the FEHBP
      standard option; the tables at the end of this brief list
      the areas in which existing state mandates do go
      beyond those covered by the FEHBP standard option.
      Benefits Explicitly Excluded  
      by the FEHBP Standard Option
      The vast majority of state benefit mandates that apply
      to specific services would be covered by a minimum
      standard equivalent to the FEHBP standard option.
      Only two benefits mandated by a number of states  
      are explicitly excluded from this plan: in vitro fertil-
      ization (IVF) and treatment of temporomandibular
      joint (TMJ) syndrome.
      The FEHBP standard option covers diagnosis
      and treatment of infertility but excludes assisted repro-
      ductive technology (ART) procedures, including IVF.
      Nine states currently require health insurers to provide
      coverage for IVF (Table 1). Although tens of thou-
      sands of parents benefit from ART procedures each
      year, the services are expensive: on average, each
      cycle of IVF costs more than $8,000 plus an additional
      $4,000 for associated medications. While most man-
      dated benefits have a negligible impact on insurance
      premiums, mandating coverage for IVF could
      increase the total cost of a health insurance plan by
      $0.20 to $2.00 per member per month.

      The nine states are Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Texas.

  2. Thursday on NBC Nightly News, NBC’s Chief Science Correspondent Robert Bazell reports on the risks and successes associated with Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, a technique used in conjunction with In Vitro Fertilization to screen embryos for potentially harmful gene mutations.

    How can we justify not covering PGD for poor people?

  3. Isn’t that the whole point of insurance?  You’re paying for something you don’t necessarily need right now in the event that you will actually need it in the future.  

    <

    p>Seems to me that this is the same for medical, fire, theft, auto insurance.  Should I be upset that I got fire insurance if my house never burns down?

    • …the diarist means medically necessary, but has a rather narrow definition of that, having previously argued that organ donations are not necessary.  If your house does catch fire then you do need that coverage.  I think the contrast here is for example life-saving surgery vs. cosmetic surgery.

      • This diary has a pretty narrow focus.  Coakley and Brown appear to differ on whether IVF should be mandated coverage.  Coakley even believes it should be mandated for the socially infertile as it now is in Australia (only an explicit denial by Coakley could refute this claim).

          • Well, if people are that lame about it, it means that IVF and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis are definitely going to be mandated coverage.  And you surely know that and must be fine with it, but you are afraid to admit it.

            • The best way to describe my position is “not opposed at this time”  The four is for your attitude.

    • Looks like you didn’t vote in the poll.  I take it you would say that all of those should be mandated covereage?

    • Or, say you want fire insurance, but they charge you an exorbitant amount, because the same fire insurance policy is also sold to pyromaniacs and bomb builders?  Don’t you think those people should pay more, assuming they are allowed to start fires and build bombs?

Archives