ReportWire

Tag: Assisted reproductive technology

  • Senate to vote again on IVF protections in election-year push

    Senate to vote again on IVF protections in election-year push

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Senate will vote for the second time this year on legislation that would establish a nationwide right to in vitro fertilization — Democrats’ latest election-year attempt to force Republicans into a defensive stance on women’s health issues.

    The bill, which the Senate will vote on Tuesday, has little chance of passing this Congress, as Republicans already blocked the same bill earlier this year. But Democrats are hoping to use the do-over vote to put pressure on Republican congressional candidates and lay out a contrast between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump in the presidential race, especially as Trump has called himself a “ leader on IVF.”

    The push started earlier this year after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law. Several clinics in the state suspended IVF treatments until the GOP-led legislature rushed to enact a law to provide legal protections for the clinics.

    Democrats quickly capitalized, holding a vote in June on the bill from Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth and warning that the U.S. Supreme Court could go after the procedure next after it overturned the right to an abortion in 2022. The legislation would also increase access to the procedure and lower costs.

    “The hard right has set its sights on a new target,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the floor Monday.

    All but two Republicans voted against the Democratic legislation, arguing that the federal government shouldn’t tell states what to do. They said the bill was an unserious effort.

    Still, Republicans have scrambled to counter Democrats on the issue, with many making clear that they support IVF treatments. Trump last month announced plans, without additional details, to require health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for the common fertility treatment.

    In his debate with Harris earlier this month, Trump said he was a “leader” on the issue and talked about the “very negative” decision by the Alabama court that was later reversed by the legislature.

    But the issue has threatened to become a vulnerability for Republicans as some state laws passed by their own party grant legal personhood not only to fetuses but to any embryos that are destroyed in the IVF process.

    Duckworth, a military veteran who has used the fertility treatment to have her two children, has led the Senate effort on the legislation. “How dare you,’” she said in comments directed toward her GOP colleagues after the first vote blocking the bill.

    Republicans have tried to push alternatives on the issue, including legislation that would discourage states from enacting explicit bans on the treatment, but those bills have been blocked by Democrats who say it is not enough.

    Republican Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama and Ted Cruz of Texas tried in June to pass a bill that would threaten to withhold Medicaid funding for states where IVF is banned. Sen. Rick Scott, a Florida Republican, said in a floor speech then that his daughter was currently receiving IVF treatment and proposed to expand the flexibility of health savings accounts.

    Cruz, who is running for reelection in Texas, said it showed Democrats’ efforts to pass legislation were a “cynical political decision.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alabama lawmakers advance legislation to protect IVF providers, with final approval still ahead

    Alabama lawmakers advance legislation to protect IVF providers, with final approval still ahead

    [ad_1]

    MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama lawmakers facing public pressure to restart in vitro fertilization services in the state advanced legislation Tuesday to shield providers from the fallout of a court ruling that equated frozen embryos to children.

    Committees in the state Senate and House approved identical bills that would protect providers from lawsuits and criminal prosecution for the “damage or death of an embryo” during IVF services. The state’s three major IVF providers paused services after the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling last month because of the sweeping liability concerns it raised.

    “The problem we are trying to solve right now is to get those families back on track to be moving forward as they try to have children,” said Rep. Terri Collins, sponsor of one of the bills. Lawmakers are aiming to give final approval Wednesday and send the legislation to Gov. Kay Ivey to be signed into law.

    Lawmakers have fast-tracked the immunity legislation as a proposed solution to get clinics back open as they weigh whether additional action is needed.

    The court ruled that three couples who had frozen embryos destroyed in an accident at a storage facility could pursue wrongful death lawsuits for their “extrauterine children.” The ruling, treating an embryo the same as a child or gestating fetus under the wrongful death statute, raised concerns about civil liabilities for clinics.

    The court decision caused an immediate backlash as groups across the country raised concerns about a ruling recognizing embryos as children. Patients in Alabama shared stories of upcoming embryo transfers being abruptly canceled and their paths to parenthood put in doubt.

    Beth and Joshua Davis-Dillard watched as the Senate committee voted. The couple transferred frozen embryos left over from when they had their twins to Alabama after moving from New York.

    “We’ve been working up to getting ready to trying again. We still have embryos from our prior cycle, which we did in New York. We transferred them here. We can’t use them. We’re on hold,” Beth Davis-Dillard said. “I’m 44, so time is limited. We don’t have unlimited time to wait. We really want to give it a try and see if we can have another baby.”

    Beth David-Dillard said she feels “very helpless and very frustrated” and in a “little bit of disbelief.” She said that before they transferred the embryos to Alabama, the couple briefly discussed whether the state’s strict abortion ban or political climate could be a problem but presumed it would ultimately be fine.

    “It just feels like our rights are being restricted,” she said.

    The legislative proposals state that “no action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilization.”

    Civil lawsuits could be pursued against manufacturers of IVF-related goods, such as the nutrient-rich solutions used to grow embryos, but damages would be capped and criminal prosecution would be forbidden. Doctors have expressed concern that without some protections for manufacturers they will not be able to get the products they need to provide IVF.

    Dr. Michael C. Allemand with Alabama Fertility said the legislative proposal would allow the clinic to resume IVF services by returning “us to a normal state of affairs in terms of what the liability issues are.”

    He said the past weeks have been difficult on patients and staff as procedures have been postponed.

    “There’s been some truly heart-wrenching conversations that have taken place,” Allemand said.

    The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a group representing IVF providers across the country, said the legislation does not go far enough. Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the organization, said Monday that the legislation does not correct the fundamental problem, which he said is the court ruling “conflating fertilized eggs with children.”

    House Democrats proposed legislation that would put in state law or the state Constitution that a human embryo outside a uterus can not be considered an unborn child or human being under state law. Democrats argued that was the most direct way to deal with the issue. Republicans have not brought the proposals up for a vote.

    State Republicans are reckoning with an IVF crisis they partly helped create with anti-abortion language added to the Alabama Constitution in 2018. The amendment, which was approved by 59% of voters, says it is state policy to recognize the “rights of unborn children.”

    The phrase became the basis of the court’s ruling. At the time, supporters said it would allow the state to ban abortion if Roe v Wade were overturned, but opponents argued it could establish “personhood” for fertilized eggs.

    Collins said she doesn’t think lawmakers got it wrong with the amendment but the wording was broad enough that it had ramifications they didn’t anticipate.

    Collins, who sponsored the state’s stringent abortion ban, said she thought any law exempting embryos from legal protections might be found unconstitutional under the 2018 amendment. Changing the constitution, she said, is a longer conversation.

    “It’s very divisive. Everybody has very strong opinions on when life begins,” she said.

    Republicans are also trying to navigate tricky political waters — torn between widespread popularity and support for IVF — and conflicts within their own party. Some Republicans have unsuccessfully sought to add Louisiana-style language to ban clinics from destroying unused or unwanted embryos.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    By Kim Chandler | Associated Press

    Source link

  • 70-year-old Ugandan woman gives birth to twins after fertility treatment

    70-year-old Ugandan woman gives birth to twins after fertility treatment

    [ad_1]

    A 70-year-old woman in Uganda has given birth to twins after receiving fertility treatment, making her one of the world’s oldest new mothers

    ByThe Associated Press

    December 1, 2023, 8:46 AM

    KAMPALA, Uganda — A 70-year-old woman in Uganda has given birth to twins after receiving fertility treatment, making her one of the world’s oldest new mothers.

    Safina Namukwaya gave birth to a boy and a girl on Wednesday via cesarean section at the hospital in the capital Kampala where she had been receiving in vitro fertilization treatment, said Arthur Matsiko, spokesman for the Women’s Hospital International Facility Center.

    “She’s healthy. She’s talking. She’s walking around if they tell her to walk around the hospital,” Matsiko said Friday, speaking of Namukwaya, who had a daughter at the same facility in 2020 following IVF treatment.

    Namukwaya is the oldest woman to deliver a baby at the hospital, whose proprietor is a prominent gynecologist in the East African region. The hospital specializes in helping couples who struggle to have children.

    Breakthroughs in research are improving success rates in IVF treatment. Notably, media reported that a 73-year-old woman in southern India gave birth to twin girls in 2019 after getting IVF care.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • More companies help with fertility care, but it is still out of reach for many

    More companies help with fertility care, but it is still out of reach for many

    [ad_1]

    Jessica Tincopa may leave the photography business she spent 14 years building for one reason: to find coverage for fertility treatment.

    After six miscarriages, Tincopa and her husband started saving for in vitro fertilization, which can cost well over $20,000. But the pandemic wiped out their savings, and they can’t find coverage for IVF on their state’s health insurance marketplace. So, the California couple is saving again, and asking politicians to help expand access.

    “No one should ever have to go through this,” Tincopa said.

    Infertility, or the inability to get pregnant after a year or more of trying, is a common problem. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that it affects nearly one in five married girls or women between the ages of 15 and 49.

    Yet coverage of fertility treatments can be hard to find in many corners of health insurance even as it grows briskly with big employers who see it as a must-have benefit to keep workers.

    It’s a divide researchers say is leading to haves and have nots for treatments, which can involve a range of prescription drugs and procedures like artificial insemination or IVF, where an embryo is created by mixing eggs and sperm in a lab dish.

    “It is still primarily for people who can afford to pay quite a bit out of pocket,” said Usha Ranji, associate director of women’s health policy at KFF, a nonprofit that studies health care issues.

    Clouding this picture are insurer concerns about cost as well as questions about how much fertility coverage should be emphasized or mandated versus helping people find other ways to build families, such as adoption.

    “If you’re going to offer one, there should be a corollary and maybe even more significant benefits for adoption,” medical ethicist Dr. Philip Rosoff said.

    A total of 54% of the biggest U.S. employers — those with 20,000 workers or more — covered IVF in 2022, according to the benefits consultant Mercer. That’s up from 36% in 2015. Walmart started offering coverage last fall and banking giant JPMorgan began this year.

    Many businesses that offer the coverage extend it beyond those with an infertility diagnosis, making it accessible to LGBTQ+ couples and single women, according to Mercer.

    The benefits consultant also said there’s big growth among employers with 500 or more workers, as 43% offered IVF coverage last year. But coverage gets spotty with smaller employers.

    Lauderhill (Florida) Fire Rescue Lt. Ame Mason estimates she and her husband have spent close to $100,000 of their own money on fertility treatments over the past few years, including several unsuccessful IVF attempts. Mason and her husband both work for the same department.

    Her brother-in-law also has a fertility issue. He works for a bigger fire department in nearby Palm Beach County and got coverage. Mason said that couple has a son.

    “It’s pretty wild. You could work a county away and have coverage,” Mason said. “There’s nothing regulating it … both government jobs.”

    Twenty-one states have laws mandating coverage of fertility treatments or fertility preservation, which some patients need before cancer treatments, according to the nonprofit patient advocacy organization Resolve. Of those states, 14 require IVF coverage.

    But most of these requirements don’t apply to individual insurance plans or coverage sold through small employers.

    “People tell us that their biggest barrier to family building is lack of insurance coverage,” Resolve CEO Barbara Collura said, adding that some insurers don’t view the care as medically necessary.

    The state and federally funded Medicaid program for people with low incomes limits coverage of fertility issues largely to diagnosis in several states, according to KFF, which says Black and Hispanic women are disproportionately affected. States also can exclude fertility drugs from prescription coverage.

    “By not covering this for poor folks, we’re saying we don’t want you to reproduce,” said medical ethicist Lisa Campo-Engelstein of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas. She noted Medicaid programs do cover birth control and sterilization procedures like vasectomies.

    In California, Tincopa says she has talked to both state and federal legislators about creating some sort of option for people to purchase individual insurance with the coverage.

    The state Senate is weighing a bill that would require coverage of fertility treatments, including IVF, for large employers. But the California Association of Health Plans opposes it, just as it opposed similar bills in recent years, because of how much it might cost.

    Spokeswoman Mary Ellen Grant noted independent analysis has shown that bills like this could increase premiums by as much as $1 billion in the state. She also said it would create a coverage gap because it wouldn’t apply to the state’s Medicaid enrollees.

    “This is not about the treatment itself,” she said. “It’s strictly based on the increased costs for our members. It would impact everybody regardless of whether they received the benefit.”

    But large fertility cost estimates often overstate how many people will use the benefit, said Sean Tipton, of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. He also said most people with fertility problems don’t need IVF.

    Tipton, who has advocated for benefit mandates in several states, said he expects to see fertility treatment coverage grow, especially with small employers who may need to offer it to attract and keep workers.

    Any states that decide to require fertility treatment coverage should also require support for adoption, said Rosoff, a retired Duke University medical school professor. He said “fairness and justice” dictate doing so, adding that adoption promotes the social good of finding homes for children.

    Many companies that have expanded fertility benefits also support adoption.

    Ame Mason’s employer helps with neither.

    Mason said she has thought about adoption, but will stick with IVF for now — scrimping wherever they can and working overtime as much as possible to pay for it. They’ve found a doctor in Florida after traveling to Barbados for care that was slightly less expensive.

    Plus, she and her husband are seeing improvements in their most recent IVF attempts. This makes her reluctant to stop trying.

    “We keep getting that glimmer of hope,” she said.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link