CT Post | CT insurers would have to cover fertility treatments for singles and LGBTQ residents under bill

By Ken Dixon

Originally Published by the Connecticut Post

Current health insurance coverage in Connecticut discriminates against singles and LGBTQ couples who have trouble getting pregnant, State Comptroller Sean Scanlon charged on Tuesday, stressing that fertility treatments can run into tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Speaking in favor of pending legislation aimed at providing equal access to coverage for the treatment and diagnosis of infertility, Scanlon said the issue was illustrated to him last year by a same-sex couple who did not have coverage under state employee health plans, and faced major financial obstacles in seeking fertility treatment.

"I'm somebody who believes fundamentally that everybody in this state who wants to have a child should be able to do so regardless of who they love and who they want to have that child with," Scanlon said during more than a half hour of testimony during a public hearing on the proposed bill. He recalled receiving an email last year from a female state employee who complained that the plan discriminated against them. "They realized that plan simply did not comport with what they were experiencing as a same-sex couple trying to access fertility services."

Within two weeks, Scanlon said he changed state policy, but for the rest of Connecticut, many of those insured have to be declared "infertile" by medical professionals in order to be covered for the procedure. "More people in the state of Connecticut and all of the fully-issued plans in the state should access to the same ability to have a child, regardless of who they love," he said. If approved in committee then ratified in the House and Senate and signed into law by the governor, the law should adhere to guidelines provided by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine.

Noting last month's ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that has cast a shadow over fertility treatments including in vitro fertilization, or IVF, Scanlon stressed the need for all insured residents to have the help available if they have trouble conceiving.

"I think we're seeing a world in which reproductive rights, and now even something like fertility are under attack in this country and I think it's more important than ever that Connecticut remain a leader in this space and remain a place that people feel that they can come and start a family with who they love regardless of who that person is," Scanlon said.

Of 20 pieces of written testimony submitted to the committee, including reproductive rights organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union, none opposed the bill. Conservative state Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato of Bristol, a top Republican on the committee, asked advocates a number of questions.

"Infertility, whether you are straight or gay, up to this point has been a requirement," Pavalock-D'Amato said. "Now is it through this bill that we are no longer requiring people to be sick, they no longer have to be infertile?"

"That is the intent of it," Scanlon replied. "The problem that we were experiencing is that people on our plan were having to be deemed by a doctor to be infertile, and there was a period of time to which they had to have sexual intercourse that was not resulting in a pregnancy in order to meet that standard." Under that requirement, same sex partners and single women who wanted to start families would be ineligible for coverage, he said. "If they don't have the necessary gametes to attain pregnancy on their own or their same-sex partner, they would automatically qualify for fertility treatments under the state employee plan." 

"If we're changing the definition for this elective procedure, why not others, as well?" Pavalock-D'Amato said.

"Yes, it is true that someone without insurance coverage could pay for this, but it's very, very expensive," Scanlon replied. "This is meant to level that playing field." 

Pavalock-D'Amato asked Liz Gustafson, state director for Reproductive Equity Now, details on the Alabama court ruling. "They explained and described and defined an embryo as an extra-uterine child, which is really dangerous in paving the way for personhood laws that is not rooted in science and has been utilized by anti-abortion and anti-assisted reproduction extremists in effort to limit access to the full range of comprehensive reproductive health care," Gustafson said.