The upcoming 2025 National Defense Authorization Act leaves out provisions for in vitro fertilization (IVF) coverage for military personnel, a benefit that will be accessible to members of Congress and their staff through government health insurance.
Currently, service members who need IVF must demonstrate their fertility issues are linked to a military service-related injury or disease to receive insurance coverage. If the new spending bill were to pass, this stipulation would be removed, allowing broader access to fertility treatments. However, the amendment to expand IVF coverage for the military was not included in the final bill.
A recent study indicates that 15% of over 200,000 active-duty military women report fertility issues. The financial burden of IVF is significant, with comprehensive coverage costing around $45,000, and a single cycle ranging between $14,000 and $20,000. Rachel Branaman, from the Modern Military Association of America, highlights the substantial financial implications for service members facing fertility challenges.
Briana Thompson from the Yale Veterans Legal Services Clinic points out that 67% of military families encounter difficulties with fertility and family building, affecting both male and female service members. The lack of coverage is problematic at a time when military recruitment and retention are facing challenges. Benefits such as IVF could be pivotal in supporting service members and acknowledging their service.
Despite support from Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Sara Jacobs and Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who emphasize the fairness of providing military personnel with the same fertility benefits as Congress, the measure did not pass. They argue against the hypocrisy of denying military personnel IVF coverage while Congress enjoys the benefit.
Some opposition arises from concerns about cost and effectiveness. Republican Congressmen Matt Rosendale and Josh Breechen argue that expanding IVF would cost taxpayers approximately $1 billion annually, is ineffective, and raises ethical concerns regarding the destruction of embryos.
Trudel Pare from the Yale Veterans Legal Services Clinic argues that providing fertility benefits to civilian federal employees but not to military members highlights an inequity that needs addressing. Advocates for the extension of IVF coverage believe that it speaks to the overall health and retention of the armed forces.
Despite the evident need and support for expanded IVF coverage among military personnel, financial and ethical concerns have thwarted its inclusion in the defense bill. As Congress prepares to access these benefits through government health plans, the disparity between military and civilian federal employees’ access to fertility treatments remains stark and contentious.
Source: Abcactionnews
