"Octo Mom" - IVF laws

I really didn't care about the first news feeds that crossed my cursor regarding the California mom who recently gave birth to 8 babies. It's just another litter and another Discovery show; I clicked elsewhere. But the story is pervasive and made its way to the morning and evening news. Nestled between the debates about the stimulus bill tonight, both Fox and MSNBC injected this human interest story.

Both anchors injected their strong opposition. MSNBC's talking head basically made her out to be just a crazy loon - end of story: OctoMom now has 14 kids, no daddy, no job, etc and she insisted to transfer 6 embryos. Fox's talking head (I'm being gracious) took her anger out on the medical community. She opined that creating embryos in the lab was akin to murdering babies. "Where are the laws" she asked her doctor panelists? One top doc's response was that most clinics absolutely follow the rules set out by the ASRM (1-3 embryos transferred dependent on strict factors). As he was trying to explain how most ( a lot?) of embryos are not viable "like any seed", she cut him off and slammed him for not answering the question about how many embryos were being killed every year.


To her credit, her question inspired me back to the blog, "where are the laws"? Here is an opportunity to take some negative press and turn it around. Since science has been invited back to Washington, let's get this addressed.


Let's start with this law: infertility treatment should be treated as a disease> thus covered by insurance (or, gasp, universal health care) > thus less need to produce unnecessary embryos (low stim cycles) .

Less drugs, less embryos, less neo natal intensive care costs for multiple preemies= duh!

Enough developed nations already employ these laws with this science; the results are out.

Having just dealt with a local politician who wanted to kill the IVF mandate in my state, I can safely say (as did he) that he didn't understand the personal plight that leads one to IVF. No one gets it that isn't intimately involved with it. Let's get some normal IF patients onto these talking head panels.

The Politician goes public and admits the error of his ways -so to speak

This just in:



A statewide paper wrote a hard hitting article about The Politician and his bill. (They also didn't fact check with him before going to print - per his response).
No hot button was left unpressed. The writer made some pretty heady insinuations about T.P.'s positions.

T.P. responded to the article at another online venue. -TP is blogging now!- He did admit that he learned lessons from us in the infertility community. That "our positions have merit and that we are a powerful force." I'll leave the commentary to the other parts for you.


He still cites (and insists on) a study by CAHI that states that IVF raises health care costs for Americans. I could poke him for this. They are NOT an independent source. They are lobbyists for the insurance industry. Google them to see just how independent: - Calls "President Bush's Plan Vital to Curing Ills of America's Health Care" and calls President Elect Obama's health care plan "A Recipe for Doom". They are uniformly against mandates. Whether you agree with their positions or not, you must agree, they are not an independent source, TP.


But at this point I am not concerned about TP's impetus. He apologized (sortakinda) and he's not pursuing the bill.

Back in December, TP said, "I think it’s a mandate that is hard to defend". He has obviously changed his mind.



Way to Go TP. I may not agree with everything you say in your editorial errr blog, but the bill is off. Can we be friends again?

The Chickadee didn't make it.

My fourth ultrasound today showed that the heart probably stopped beating last week. This is not a tremendous surprise considering my previous ultrasound results that were not very encouraging. "It was most certainly due to a chromosomal problem from the outset".

The most curious thing is that to this minute I still have morning sickness and can feel twinges in my uterus. I am told that this is the placenta growing like it is supposed to despite the demise of the fetus. Can I tell you that feeling pregnant when you're not - sucks?

Am I heartbroken? No. Am I sad? Very. Years / months of hopes dashed keep accumulating. We, that are struggling with infertility, keep on keeping on. Thank goodness for medical science in addition to faith to give us hope. Thank goodness that IVF is mandated in Arkansas and I have some frozen embryos to try again.


I have some silver linings:


> I have frozen embryos.
> I have my God to remind me about Nature's way.(Science and Nature: what a delicate balance)
> The company I work for recently deployed good private short term disability. I can now enroll in time to have paid benefits when maternity leave DOES happen for me. For me this is a tremendous benefit. Now, I can take time off work to bond with my newborn and still be able to pay the bills that warm my house and fill my fridge. In my 20 years in the workforce, this is the first company I have been employed by that offers health insurance- much less disability. Now I'm just like families in all other developed nations!

Do these sentiments make me a socialist Sarah Palin? Or is my situation (insurance, disability, and state mandate) a free market example? Just call me Hussein.

( I didn't intend to mix my technical logs with my political logs. Strange how that's been my evolution)





I'm going to step out and catch this grand sunset.

Bill to Repeal IVF mandate won't go forward?

I heard from a couple of reliable sources that The Politician has given his word that he is not pursuing the bill any more. ( He won't communicate with me anymore. Wonder why? I've been so generous to remove his letter and comment and name and bill?) ;-)

We're all waiting to hear or see this proof on Monday , but I believe The Politician is going to do the right thing.

The local rally has increased by hundreds strong. Dang that feels good.

Please take 2 seconds and vote for Mel!

The 2008 Weblog awards are looking for votes right now. Click Here to Vote.
Vote everyday.

Mel / aka / Stirrup Queen is the Queen B. Blogger of the infertility blogging world -and so much more. The synergy and community she creates is without parallel.

Feel alone in your journey? Need help getting a word out? Looking for someone who's doing what your doing? Going on to the next phase in your journey to make a family? Need a hug? Want to share a recent success?

Visit Mel (and thousands of others) at Stirrup Queens. Revisit daily because you will be amazed at day to day updates.

I've had my best connections on her LOST and FOUND button.

Bill still shows on Legislative Calendar

I am not quite ready to pull the trigger reverting all the posts to their original state. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he WILL be withdrawing the Bill. Yet as of this morning I still see it on the State calendar. It is to be "introduced" Jan 9.

I want to keep my end of the bargain- as I recall it - for just a little while longer. I will not speak about him by name, yet.

Meanwhile, I am gathering contacts in the news and legislative field so to prepare myself for public opposition to this proposed policy change.

I have no problems being the face to this opposition.

Your support and comments here are all the muscle I need.

The Politician says, "We don't have an agreement"

The Politician just wrote to me that "we don't have an agreement". He insists I permanently delete all my posts tagged "infertility politics". I do not want to do this. He insists that I agreed to, but I have proof otherwise.

In the spirit of grassroots movements and particularly infertility politics, I want the meat of this matter to remain on my blog. For posterity sake. The productive comments from this community are strong and it is my hope that these posts can help someone else down the line.

It does not matter to The Politician that I removed all references to his name, his bill, his title, our state, his links , his comment , his letter, etc. -all searchable terms were removed. I even deleted the unproductive comments that might have been embarrassing to him?

Furthermore I offered to temporarily remove my "infertility politics" posts for one month; until this died down.

He responded that we don't have an agreement anymore.

What do you think about this?


UPDATE: 7:25pm
I'll leave - for now - all the posts that I edited in his favor. Thanks for your quick input.

If I find that the bill is still on the legislative calendar, I'll revert all the posts to their original place: names, links and plenty of new stuff that will amaze you. I'll go back to gathering residents, sending out press releases, and refining my voice for when the time comes at the capital. He told me that we don't have an agreement anymore, so of course this would be my course. (I'm holding out hope that he'll drop the bill)

Question: Why do you think he insists that my blog return to the day before I read the announcement that he was presenting a bill that would repeal the IVF mandate? I find it bizarre that my conciliatory efforts to date are not enough and that all history must be erased - or else.....

To Clarify: T.P. believes that I am the one doing the reneging. He insists our agreement was that I would delete all posts tagged "Infertility Politics". My recollection is that I would delete all possible references to him and his bill in said posts.

Major Turn of Events: the bill is dead

The bill that was to repeal mandated coverage of IVF in my state has been killed. The Politician will "take measures to ensure that it is not considered by any legislative committee."

I had a very thoughtful conversation with The Politician. For many reasons, including "learning more about IVF and insurance rates" from us and other sources, he is dropping it.

Not only am I proud as a peacock for my state, but I think this is a profound gesture for the rest of the United States. There are credible studies that show when IVF is NOT mandated in states, multiple births are higher.

( The reason is twofold: insurance WILL often cover IUI and ovarian stimulation drugs. Doctors have less control over fertilization in this scenario than they do with IVF. Also Couples that have to pay out of pocket for IVF are often willing to risk transferring more embryos because of enormous loans they most often have to take). >> PLEASE correct me if I am not on the mark with this ....

Higher order multiple births lead to time in Neo Natal Intensive Care units. Medical Costs for NICU are far greater that they are for IVF.

I extend to you heartfelt thanks IF community and The Politician. I am exceedingly grateful.

Your Comments

Maybe you don't live in my state, but your Point of View is very important to me. I appear to be going all the way with this. I am morphing into a more educated, strong opponent on the subject due to the comments you are leaving here. Press releases, letters to Reps, and perhaps an appearance at the capital might result because of the aid I am receiving in your comments. I don't feel alone.

Still looking for other residents.

Keep 'em coming and thank you very much.

No more grey area: read the bill here, read more about his source

EDITED JAN 2



-link to actual bill-

"Will repeal In Vitro as a covered expense"



#############



XXXXX is using a study (referenced in previous post) for his claim that insurance rates would drop for residents. Click here to read more about the Council for Affordable Health Insurance.

From sourcewatch.org: "CAHI's membership includes insurance companies, small businesses, providers, nonprofit associations, actuaries, insurance brokers and individuals. Since 1992, CAHI has been an active advocate for market-oriented solutions to the problems in America's health care system ... CAHI is an association of small and mid-sized insurance companies, actuarial firms, legislative consultants, physicians and insurance agents," its website states."

Politician finds my IF blog and leaves a comment

UPDATE Jan2 2009.

This post has been severly edited. I removed any identifying terms.


#########



I paused before I clicked "publish" on my posts regarding the attempted repeal of the AR IVF mandate. It would have been very easy to hide all the search terms that could out me. But I opted not to hide. Why should I? I am proudly pregnant - for now - with thanks to the state mandate that has been in place for almost 20 years. Just ask my parents, my inlaws, great grandparents, my brothers and my husband how thankful they are for the state mandate.

The politician who is responsible for the bill that would repeal the state mandate googled me / him / bill and found this blog. He even left a comment.


This is politics; I am opposing his bill. I am done with IVF. I will not be doing it again and the repeal of the state mandate would not affect me directly. It will affect the infertile couples that will be walking behind me. What would you do if your state mandated IVF and then someone came along and wanted to repeal it?



Click here to view the report he is referencing and is the basis for his bill to repeal the IVF mandate. It does not prove that insurance rates would drop if his bill is successful.



I am indeed a powerful lobbying special interest group; I am an infertiliy patient. I was not "mislead by my fertility clinic" as you state in the response. I looked up your bill here:

Some of the more productive comments that were originally left are pasted here:

1.
You said it for all of us struggling to have our own family photo album - thank you!

2.
Stick to your guns with this guy. And I cannot believe he left a comment on your blog?!? As mentioned before, contact your local news station and continue to keep this ball rolling and open the eyes and ears to everyone who could be effected by it.

3.
You go! I am from the state mandated Massachusetts and I thank goodness that we have infertility coverage. IF is emotionally devistating enough, why should it also have to stress if not ruin people financially too?

If this were happenin in my state, I would do the exact same thing you are doing!! Way to go!

4.
Anyone who thinks insurance companies will LOWER premiums if families are deprived of health care access needs to go see a doctor immediately--they must be delusional with high fever.

Anyone who thinks that not covering IVF leads to lower costs is likewise in need of medical attention. When couples with infertility have to pay tens of thousands of dollars per treatment--huge swaths of their before-tax income--we take risks. We put back three embryos instead of one, say, during IVF. We take higher levels of stimulating hormones and produce large numbers of eggs during IUI. We risk multiples, who are almost always born early and sometimes spend expensive days, weeks, and months in NICUs. NICU care is covered. These children's on going health issues are covered. That sure boosts premiums. Give us coverage, and you'll see thoughtful medical care, instead of the all-or-nothing black-jack mentality of those of us sunk deep in medical costs--and taking big tax deductions while we're at it, and that affects state coffers.

What working families can afford to buy insurance anyway, with the for-profit private companies in the mix? Perhaps we should do away with them and try a single payer plan like every other single developed country in the world. THAT will make insurance affordable, not doing away with coverage for selective medical conditions.

5.
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. I was just looking over a list of the states who mandated IF coverage yesterday, and I was so impressed with your state. Your state, like Mississippi (my state) has a bad rep in the US for being the last in many things. Just seeing your state on the list made me have more respect for your state. It would be such a shame for your state if this bill was passed. It has been proven over and over again that adding infertility coverage has not shown to have any effect on insurance costs. This rep is kidding himself if he thinks that taking away this coverage would making insurance costs go down at all. And let's not forget that infertility is a medical condition and should be treated like one.

6.
Wow. Here from LFCA and, yeah, I really cannot get beyond (a) infertility is a medical problem and should be treated like one, including of course insurance coverage -- rare though that is in -- and (b) I strongly suspect, though I don't know that it's been researched, that covering IVF does or can reduce costs by reducing the prevalence of high-order multiples (I for one would be delighted to accept insurance coverage in exchange for limits on the number of embryos transferred).

I am not fortunate enough to live in AR, but how sad that this state's forward-thinking policy on insurance coverage for infertility is being challenged.

Letter to me from Politican re IVF mandate repeal

UPDATE ON JAN 2
I have removed the letter from the politician. The gist of it was that I was taking the wrong side and that if IVF mandate were repealed, all insurance premiums would be decreased 3-5%.

I have saved some of the better comments left by the powerful women of the infertility blogging world. I hope that they can be used again, by others in need.



Comment -
I don't understand this logic...so because one medical problem adds x amount to everyone's policy it should be cut to reduce the cost for everyone? Don't all insured services (ywzq) add to the cost for everyone? But certainly not everyone uses ywzq either. Heck I bet those who don't need z would love to have z cut from the mandate so -they- can have lower insurance rates. Why cut X over another condition/tretament? Seems to me like trying to dismiss infertilty as a supposed "voluntary" condition and discriminate against those dealing with it. We are an easy target as usual.

Comment -
If he wants to cut insurance costs, why not slash mental health care (oh, wait, isn't that illegal?) or prescription drug coverage? Those represent a much larger percentage of the expenditures than IVF. Clearly, this is a value judgment about which medical issues are worth treating. Shame on you, XXXXXXX , father of XXXX children, for trying to take away care for real medical issues that prevent others from having the family you take for granted.

In addition, when IVF is not available, women must resort to ovulation induction alone, which more often results in higher order multiples, often born prematurely, whose NICU care increases the cost of health care for everyone. I don't see that being taken into consideration.


Comment -
I have just read a few statements by XXXXXXXX. He seems to be one of those people who simply does not acknowledge that infertility is as valid a medical problem as any other, and deserves coverage for effective treatment just as any other condition does. In one quote he states: “In my opinion, the reason people need health insurance is to be able to have a reasonably pain-free, productive existence,”. he said. "That's possible ... without having access to an array of reproduction technologies," XXXXXX said. The sheer ignorance of that statement astounds me. Clearly he has no concept of the reality of infertility and how it affects people’s lives (and their health for that matter). To have the audacity to suggest that those dealing with infertility do not need “health insurance” to be able to have a “reasonably pain-free, productive existence,” stuns me (and clearly shows he has no idea whatsoever of what he is talking about with regards to infertility and access to treatment). Having children is a fundamental human experience, and to have a medical problem that prevents ones reproductive system from working properly thus denying people the ability to have a child is far from benign as he suggests it is by his comments. I find it endless fascinating how easy it often seems for those with children, whom they often claim are the most important thing in the world to them (“my most important constituent” comments XXXXXXX about his own child-and has ‘cute’ baby photos of his children - on his website), to dismiss infertility coverage that would allow others to have a family as they does. Can he not imagine what it would be like to not have his precious children, or to know that the reason he didn’t have his children was simply because he could not afford the medical treatment needed to have one. It is one thing to be against coverage for something, quite another to dismiss and deny the reality of what that something really is as the excuse for doing it is quite another.


Comment -
Ahem. He chides you for not doing your research and claims that A) The mandates to cover IVF do not exist, and B) He is not trying to do away with IVF coverage, and C) "Powerful special interests" are trying to price poor people in the state out of affordable health care coverage".

As far as A) and B) go, I read that bill, and it specifically addresses doing away with IVF coverage.

As far as C) goes, perhaps Mr XXXXXXX didn't do his research, because the Council For Affordable Health Insurance is on Sourcewatch.org's list of front groups- for the insurance industry.

Isn't the insurance industry a much larger, much wealthier "special interest" than an individual clinic, or a small group of infertility patients?

Look how much this wonderful nonpartisan council who decided IVF coverage needed the chopping block spent on lobbying yearly: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Council+for+Affordable+Health+Insurance&year=2008

By the way, if you look at both the above link and the so-called accurate report, you will see that Victoria Bunce, the Director of Research and Policy, is also listed as one of their main lobbyists.

Whose corner is your state rep in? I'd love to see who contributed to his campaign. Has any wining and dining been going on?

I see he also lists himself on his website as pro-life. How much of this anti-IVF campaign is about money, and how much of it is it about when the beginning of life is defined, and chipping away at abortion laws?

Infertility Political Action Requested!

Please read the email chain below. If you have any political action advice please chime in. There is not much time!

To Whomever it May concern:


I just found out at my Fertility Clinic this am that there is a bill to be presented in ONE MONTH to repeal the IVF mandate that has been in place in the state for 20 years.

I am an IVF patient that just got pregnant thanks to this mandate. My medical history is similar to many others: We have unexplained Infertility . We have been trying for many years to get pregnant. We started with non – invasive fertility treatments about a year ago – to no avail. Meanwhile, the biological clock is ticking unfavorably. We got pregnant with our first In Vitro Fertilization that we would have been unable to touch without the state mandate.

This state prides itself that it is “Family Friendly”. The IVF state mandate echoes this and makes this state very unique in the United States. Most couples have to take out loans that take years to pay off. Of course most other developed nations cover this medical procedure with their national healthcare plans. It should go without saying how infertility affects families. Medical Intervention should not be for a privileged few.


I am ready to put a lot of energy into opposing this bill. BILL XXXX.

I called XXXXX, who is introducing the bill to ask why he is doing it. He said , “because the IVF mandate raises everyone’s insurance by 3-5%”. This claim is dubious to me and I would like to see some proof that policies would lower if the bill is passed.

If you have any political action advice for me, it would be greatly appreciated.

Virginia