US State-Level Infertility Insurance Mandates and Health Plan Expenditures on Infertility Treatments
- PMID: 30600516
- PMCID: PMC11056963
- DOI: 10.1007/s10995-018-2675-y
US State-Level Infertility Insurance Mandates and Health Plan Expenditures on Infertility Treatments
Abstract
Objectives We aimed to examine the extent to which health plan expenditures for infertility services differed by whether women resided in states with mandates requiring coverage of such services and by whether coverage was provided through a self-insured plan subject to state mandates versus fully-insured health plans subject only to federal regulation. Methods This retrospective cohort study used individual-level, de-identified health insurance claims data. We included women 19-45 years of age who were continuously enrolled during 2011 and classified them into three mutually exclusive groups based on highest treatment intensity: in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), or ovulation-inducing (OI) medications. Using generalized linear models, we estimated adjusted annual mean, aggregate, and per member per month (PMPM) expenditures among women in states with an infertility insurance mandate and those in states without a mandate, stratified by enrollment in a fully-insured or self-insured health plan. Results Of the 6,006,017 women continuously enrolled during 2011, 9199 (0.15%) had claims for IVF, 10,112 (0.17%) had claims for IUI, and 23,739 (0.40%) had claims for OI medications. Among women enrolled in fully insured plans, PMPM expenditures for infertility treatment were 3.1 times higher for those living in states with a mandate compared with states without a mandate. Among women enrolled in self-insured plans, PMPM infertility treatment expenditures were 1.2 times higher for mandate versus non-mandate states. Conclusions for Practice Recorded infertility treatment expenditures were higher in states with insurance reimbursement mandates versus those without mandates, with most of the difference in expenditures incurred by fully-insured plans.
Keywords: Artificial insemination; Assisted reproductive technologies; Expenditures; In vitro fertilization; Infertility; Insurance; Ovulation induction.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Impact of in vitro fertilization state mandates for third party insurance coverage in the United States: a review and critical assessment.Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2022 Aug 4;20(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s12958-022-00984-5. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2022. PMID: 35927756 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Unmet financial burden of infertility care and the impact of state insurance mandates in the United States: analysis from a popular crowdfunding platform.Fertil Steril. 2021 Oct;116(4):1119-1125. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.05.111. Epub 2021 Jul 8. Fertil Steril. 2021. PMID: 34246467
-
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection use in states with and without insurance coverage mandates for infertility treatment, United States, 2000-2015.Fertil Steril. 2018 Apr;109(4):691-697. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.027. Epub 2018 Mar 24. Fertil Steril. 2018. PMID: 29580644 Free PMC article.
-
State insurance mandates and racial and ethnic inequities in assisted reproductive technology utilization.Fertil Steril. 2024 Jan;121(1):54-62. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.09.015. Epub 2023 Sep 28. Fertil Steril. 2024. PMID: 37775023 Free PMC article.
-
Fertility-a human right worthy of mandated insurance coverage: the evolution, limitations, and future of access to care.Fertil Steril. 2021 Jan;115(1):29-42. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.155. Epub 2020 Dec 18. Fertil Steril. 2021. PMID: 33342534 Review.
Cited by
-
The association between preconception body mass index and subfertility among Hispanic and non-Hispanic women: A cross-sectional study from Utah's Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System survey (2012-2015).Utah Womens Health Rev. 2020;2020:https://uwhr.utah.edu/2020/07/. Epub 2020 Jul 31. Utah Womens Health Rev. 2020. PMID: 32914149 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of in vitro fertilization state mandates for third party insurance coverage in the United States: a review and critical assessment.Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2022 Aug 4;20(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s12958-022-00984-5. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2022. PMID: 35927756 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Seasonal fluctuation of in vitro fertilization encounters in the United States.J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023 May;40(5):1099-1107. doi: 10.1007/s10815-023-02777-0. Epub 2023 Mar 21. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023. PMID: 36943573 Free PMC article.
-
Access to Fertility Care in Geographically Underserved Populations, a Second Look.Reprod Sci. 2022 Jul;29(7):1983-1987. doi: 10.1007/s43032-022-00991-2. Epub 2022 Jun 9. Reprod Sci. 2022. PMID: 35680726 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2011). Percent of private-sector enrollees that are enrolled in self-insured plans at establishments that offer health insurance by firm size and state: United States, 2011. Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends. http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_2/.... Accessed 21 Dec 2018.
-
- Chambers GM, Sullivan EA, Ishihara O, Chapman MG, & Adamson GD (2009). The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: A review of selected developed countries. Fertility and Sterility, 91(6), 2281–2294. - PubMed
-
- Chandra A, Copen CE, & Stephen EH (2013). Infertility and impaired fecundity in the United States, 1982–2010: Data from the National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 67, 1–18. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources