Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Some Not Eligible for Fertility Coverage

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Choice Donate to DU
 
MountainLaurel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 02:20 PM
Original message
Some Not Eligible for Fertility Coverage
So, what do you think about this? Is it OK to make a law to restrict coverage to women under a certain age? Is this a valid concern medically speaking? Is it discrimination? Does this clause negate the purpose of the law, since it's older women who are most likely to require fertility treatments.

I'd be curious to hear your opinions.


Teresa Pica-LeRuo thought her dreams of becoming a mother would finally come true this year.

For years, she and her husband, Jim, have been trying to have a child. They attempted several infertility regimens, including intrauterine inseminations, and once became pregnant before complications caused her to lose the child. They also adopted a baby, but were devastated when the birth mother changed her mind three weeks later and took the infant back.

Pica-LeRuo pinned fresh hopes on a law approved by the General Assembly this spring that requires certain insurers to pay for infertility treatments. But the Stratford couple discovered that Connecticut's law cuts off benefits to women when they turn 40, leaving the 42-year-old Pica-LeRuo without coverage.

snip

The law, which goes into effect Oct. 1, makes Connecticut the 15th state to mandate infertility coverage. But it's the only state to deny the benefit to women 40 and over, and advocates are concerned that more states will follow suit.


http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-apinfertility0926.artsep26,0,2264188.story?coll=hc-headlines-local
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Love Bug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm generally against forced fertility coverage
This is an elective procedures, imo. I have all sympathy for people who can't have children, but I don't think insurers should be forced to pay for something that is not medically necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. Doesn't that violate equal protection?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MountainLaurel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That's why I'm asking
One of the interesting things about the legislation is that it also restricts the number of embryos that can be implanted at one time (presumably to keep women who only have one shot at this from ending up pregnant with a litter, which is dangerous for the women and the fetuses) and other medical concerns. The U.S. has a history of not regulating and turning a blind eye to reproductive technologies lest the anti-science crowd show up screaming about hurting blastocytes. It seems that CT is trying to act where the U.S. has failed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm Against Covering Fertility Treatments
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 04:22 AM by REP
When the elderly and disabled can afford the medicine they need to stay alive, then I'll get real worried about covering vanity medicine, like fertility treatments.

On edit: I probably won't even get that worried about fertility treatments until birth control, abortions and surgical sterilizations are free to anyone who wants them. Anything that has a 74%+ failure rate, as do almost all fertility treatments, is not something that I need to pay for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. A birth mother changing her mind is very rare
In my own barely-informed opinion, time would be better spent trying the adoption route again. There is nothing magical about pregnancy, fer cry-yi; the bind you have with your child is far, far more about how often you feed, bathe, and play with him or her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Actually, Only 2% of Women with 'Desireable' Babies Surrender for Adoption
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 06:59 AM by REP
Giving up a helpless newborn to strangers is not very easy to do, and even during the worst of the times, only about 2% of women volutarily surrender their infants for adoption. Adoption is a great solution *for the child* when the parents are dead or too dangerous and there is no other family to care for the child, but it is terrible as a means of distributing consumer goods (ie, living human beings) to people who want babies. Wanting something is not a good enough to reason to have the want satisfied, especially when it comes at such a high cost to the women who surender their infants and the children themselves. Additionally, relinquishing mothers tend be the youngest and poorest women being used by older, wealthier couples to obtain a baby.


J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1999 Jul-Aug;28(4):395-400.
Postadoptive reactions of the relinquishing mother: a review.

Askren HA, Bloom KC.

Deer Valley OB/GYN, Mesa, AZ, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature addressing the process of relinquishment as it relates to the birth mother. DATA SOURCES: Computerized searches in CINAHL; Article 1 st, PsycFIRST, and SocioAbs databases, using the keywords adoption and relinquishment; and ancestral bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Articles from indexed journals in the English language relevant to the keywords were evaluated. No studies were located before 1978. Studies that sampled only an adolescent population were excluded. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted and information was organized under the following headings: grief reaction, long-term effects, efforts to resolve, and influences on the relinquishment experience. DATA SYNTHESIS: A grief reaction unique to the relinquishing mother was identified. Although this reaction consists of features characteristic of the normal grief reaction, these features persist and often lead to chronic, unresolved grief. CONCLUSIONS: The relinquishing mother is at risk for long-term physical, psychologic, and social repercussions. Although interventions have been proposed, little is known about their effectiveness in preventing or alleviating these repercussions.

Med J Aust. 1986 Feb 3;144(3):117-9.
Psychological disability in women who relinquish a baby for adoption.

Condon JT.

During 1986, approximately 2000 women in Australia are likely to relinquish a baby for adoption. A study is presented of 20 relinquishing mothers that demonstrates a very high incidence of pathological grief reactions which have failed to resolve although many years have elapsed since the relinquishment. This group had abnormally high scores for depression and psychosomatic symptoms on the Middlesex Hospital questionnaire. Factors that militate against the resolution of grief after relinquishment are discussed. Guidelines for the medical profession that are aimed at preventing psychological disability in relinquishing mothers are outlined.

Community Health Stud. 1990;14(2):180-9.
Social factors associated with the decision to relinquish a baby for adoption.

Najman JM, Morrison J, Keeping JD, Andersen MJ, Williams GM.

Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Queensland.

Little is known about the characteristics, social circumstances and mental health of women who give a child up for adoption. This paper reports data from a longitudinal study of 8556 women interviewed initially at their first obstetrical visit. In total, 7668 proceeded to give birth to a live singleton baby, of which 64 then relinquished the baby for adoption. Relinquishing mothers were predominantly 18 years of age or younger, in the lowest family income group, single, having an unplanned and/or unwanted baby and reported that they were not living with a partner. These women were somewhat more likely to manifest symptoms of anxiety and depression both prior, and subsequent to, the adoption, but the majority of relinquishing mothers were of 'normal' mental health. The decision to relinquish a baby appears to be a consequence of an unwanted pregnancy experienced by an economically deprived single mother rather than the result of emotional or psychological/psychiatric considerations. These findings document a particular dimension of the impact of poverty on health.

Pediatrics. 2001 Aug;108(2):E30. Adoption as a risk factor for attempted suicide during adolescence.

Slap G, Goodman E, Huang B.

Division of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229-3039, USA. slap@chmcc.org

OBJECTIVE: Depression, impulsivity, and aggression during adolescence have been associated with both adoption and suicidal behavior. Studies of adopted adults suggest that impulsivity, even more than depression, may be an inherited factor that mediates suicidal behavior. However, the association between adoption and adolescent suicide attempts and the mechanisms that might explain it remain unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the following: 1) whether suicide attempts are more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents rather than biological parents; 2) whether the association is mediated by impulsivity, and 3) whether family connectedness decreases the risk of suicide attempt regardless of adoptive or biological status. METHODS: A secondary analysis of Wave I data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health was conducted, which used a school-based, clustered sampling design to identify a nationally representative sample of 7th- to 12th-grade students, with oversampling of underrepresented groups. Of the 90 118 adolescents who completed the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in-school survey, 17 125 completed the in-home interview and had parents of identified gender who completed separate in-home questionnaire. The subset of adolescents for this study was drawn from the in-home sampling according to the following criteria: 1) adolescent living with adoptive or biological mother at the time of the interview, 2) adolescent had never been separated from mother for more than 6 months, 3) mother was in first marriage at the time of the interview, and 4) the adoptive mother had never been married to the adolescent's biological father. Of the 6577 adolescents in the final study sample, 214 (3.3%) were living with adoptive mothers and 6363 (96.7%) were living with biological mothers. Variables. The primary outcome measured was adolescent report of suicide attempt(s) in the past year. Other variables included in the analyses were sociodemographics characteristics (gender, age, race/ethnicity, family income, parental education), general health (self-rated health, routine examination in the past year, need for medical care in the past year that was not obtained), mental health (depressive symptoms, self-image, trouble relaxing in the past year, bad temper, psychological or emotional counseling in the past year), risk behaviors (cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, sexual intercourse ever, delinquency, physical fighting in the past year, impulsive decision making), school-related characteristics (grade point average, school connectedness), and family interaction (family connectedness, parental presence, maternal satisfaction with parent-adolescent relationship). Data Analysis. Univariate analyses were used to compare adoptees versus nonadoptees, suicide attempters versus nonsuicide attempters, and adopted suicide attempters versus nonadopted suicide attempters on all variables. Variables that were associated with attempted suicide were entered into a forward stepwise logistic regression procedure, and variables that were associated with the log odds of attempt were retained in the model. The area under the model's receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated as a measure of its overall performance. After the association of adoption with attempted suicide was demonstrated, the potential mediating effect of impulsivity was explored by adding it to the model. The same procedure was followed for any variable that was associated with adoption in the full sample or the subsample of suicide attempters. To determine whether any variable in the model moderated the association between adoption and suicide attempt, the interaction term for that variable x adoption was forced into the model. RESULTS: Adoptees differed significantly from nonadoptees on 4 of 26 variables. They were more likely to have attempted suicide (7.6% vs 3.1%) and to have received psychological or emotional counseling in the past year (16.9% vs 8.2%), and their mothers reported higher parental education and family income. Attempters differed significantly from nonattempters on all variables except for age, race/ethnicity, parental education, family income, and routine examination in the past year. On logistic regression, 9 variables were independently associated with attempted suicide: depression (adjusted odds ratio : 3.41), counseling (AOR: 2.83), female gender (AOR: 2.31), cigarette use (AOR: 2.31), delinquency (AOR: 2.17), adoption (AOR: 1.98), low self-image (AOR: 1.78), aggression (AOR: 1.48), and high family connectedness (AOR: 0.60). The receiver operating characteristic curve for the model had an area of 0.834, indicating performance significantly better than chance. The AOR for adoption did not change when parental education, family income, and impulsivity were forced into the model. None of the interaction terms (adoption × another risk factor) demonstrated a significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS. Attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents. The association persists after adjusting for depression and aggression and is not explained by impulsivity as measured by a self-reported tendency to make decisions quickly. Although the mechanism underlying the association remains unclear, recognizing the adoptive status may help health care providers to identify youths who are at risk and to intervene before a suicide attempt occurs. It is important to note, however, that the great majority of adopted youths do not attempt suicide and that adopted and nonadopted youths in this study did not differ in other aspects of emotional and behavioral health. Furthermore, high family connectedness decreases the likelihood of suicide attempts regardless of adoptive status and represents a protective factor for all adolescents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
EmmaP Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. Nope.
I'm not in favor of health insurance coverage to treat infertility...for anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. Progressive companies will provide fertility coverage
and those that do, establish limits to what treatments are reimburseable.

Contrary to the rampant discussion of IVF, etc, there are a wide range of options to infertile couples to attain conception, and not all of them include IVF.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WildClarySage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. An excellent point. My insurance company was unwilling to cover
"fertility treatment" of any kind... however they did pay for the medication that resulted in my becoming pregnant, because it (Femara) is not primarily dispensed as a fertility drug. So it was covered. It's also a pretty inexpensive treatment, as far as it goes. Instead of having to resort to IVF- which they would not cover, but our EAP would have assisted with- we were fortunate to find success with a relatively simple medication. It's not for everyone, but infertility is not a single disorder, it's the result of many disorders. Some of which have other, more serious results and should be treated aggressively, even when fertility is not the desired outcome, such as thyroid dysfunction, hormonal imbalances, conditions like Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, etc... Fertility impairments can indicate other problems that need treatment, and often those problems don't show up until fertility-related tests are ordered. Some can be simply and inexpensively overcome.

It's my opinion that these treatments, even the more expensive ones, should be available to anyone who desires them. I hope my opinion is not solely based on my experience with infertility, but I must confess my bias. Still, I believe that reproductive choice includes access to fertility treatments for all regardless of income. As we discover more and more about environmental effects on fertility, scientists are discovering that the rates are climbing. I worry that someday, assistance in reproduction will become more the norm than the exception and when that happens, only the wealthy will be able to have children. Even if our infertility rates never increase so substantially, it seems more and more so that reproduction these days is more and more a matter of status among some parents- how else do you explain all the 'necessary' baby gear we simply *must* have these days, culminating in stores like Babies 'R Us?

I don't mean that we should stop demanding insurance cover other medically necessary reproductive medicine, such as abortion or contraceptive services. These should all be part of universal healthcare measures available to all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Choice Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC