Republicans block expanded in vitro fertilization coverage for feds in House and Senate

Republicans in both the House and Senate on Thursday blocked measures aimed at expanding federal employees and their families’ access to in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Last week, Sens. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., reintroduced a package of bills related to in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments, including a mandate that OPM requires carriers in FEHBP, the world’s largest employer-sponsored health insurance program, cover additional costs associated with IVF, as well as expand coverage to all types of assisted reproductive technology, such as gamete and zygote intrafallopian transfer. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer promised to quickly bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.

Currently, FEHBP carriers cover artificial insemination and related drugs and the drugs associated with up to three in vitro fertilization cyclers per year. Lawmakers’ recent interest in the issue stems in part from the Alabama Supreme Court’s brief banning of IVF earlier this year.

Prior to discussion of the package on the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, sought unsuccessfully to bring his own bill, the IVF Protection Act (S. 4368), to the floor for consideration instead. Despite its name, the bill does not actually codify or expand Americans’ access to IVF services, instead punishing states if they ban IVF by making them ineligible to receive Medicaid funding. Republicans then blocked consideration of the Democrats’ legislation by a 48-47 vote, with only Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voting in favor of proceeding.

On the House side, appropriators sought to amend that chamber’s version of the fiscal 2025 Financial Services and General Government spending package to include a provision mandating expanded coverage of IVF in the FEHBP. House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro, who led the effort, said even with the federal government’s insurance program, families can incur tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs associated with the procedure.

“One federal worker named Jonah was trying to start a family with his partner using IVF,” DeLauro said. “But she recently suffered a heartbreaking miscarriage at 12 weeks. They have opted to try again, but if it is not successful, they will not be able to afford another cycle . . . Extending federal employee benefits to cover IVF is not just the right thing to do, it’s also beneficial for our government and our ability to retain skilled workers who can better serve our constituents.”

But Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, proposed an amendment to DeLauro’s amendment, which replaced the provision’s text with a mandate that OPM provide Congress a report on the current IVF coverage options within FEHBP and what it would cost to expand that coverage.

“We know IVF has helped countless women across the United States grow their families, and we should continue to ensure that women who want to become moms are able to do so, and politics should never get in the way with that,” Hinson said. “As someone who is strongly pro-life, I will continue to support IVF and I firmly believe women should be able to access fertility treatments. However, I believe Ms. DeLauro’s amendment [solves] a problem that doesn’t exist.”

DeLauro noted that multiple states have expanded their coverage of IVF in recent years, mostly to the tune of only minor premium increases—in Connecticut, state employees saw a 10-cent increase. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla., accused her GOP colleague of a bad-faith effort to vote against expanding access to IVF under the guise of supporting it.

“You know what I’ve learned in my 32 years of legislative experience?” she asked. “If someone doesn’t want to vote on something in a straightforward way—because they actually oppose it—they propose a study. They want to study it to death, particularly if it’s something that needs no further study. The underlying amendment is demonstrative of whether or not we support everyone being able to have access to start and build their families through IVF, or whether we oppose it. This is a straightforward vote. If you support making sure IVF is accessible and you don’t want to study it into oblivion—particularly because it doesn’t need further study—you vote against Ms. Hinson’s amendment and for Ms. DeLauro’s.”

The committee voted 34-24 along party lines to support Hinson’s amendment. DeLauro then sought to withdraw her amendment, but was blocked by a Republican objection.