Approximately 10% of couples in the United States are unable to concieve after one year of unprotected intercourse. There are a number of medical options now available to treat infertility. Do you...

1 Answer | Add Yours

pohnpei397's profile pic

Posted on

My own view is that insurance companies should not be required to cover the very high costs of this type of treatment.  That is to say, they should not be required to cover them without being able to charge higher premiums to those who want to be able to avail themselves of these treatments.  However, it would certainly be possible to argue the contrary.

My view is that having children is not necessary to a person’s life.  Of course, many people do think that it is.  However, people who cannot have children in the natural way can do things like adopting.  Therefore, the point is that this is not something that is medically necessary.  It is more like plastic surgery than it is like regular medical treatment.  Therefore, it does not seem that insurance companies should be required to cover it.

My basic view is that insurance companies should be required only to cover things that are medically necessary for health.  They should not be required to cover elective procedures.  Therefore, I would argue that it is not appropriate to require that they cover fertility treatments.

We’ve answered 319,699 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question