screen-shot-2019-01-30-at-12-40-10-pm-300x292-6373928Requiring New York health plans to cover in vitro fertilization would add up to 1.1 percent to premiums, according to a state study belatedly released today.

Based on the state’s average premiums for 2017, the additional cost would be as much as $234 a year for a family of four – far more than previous estimates from proponents of an IVF mandate.

For an average individual policy, 1.1 percent would be about $80 a year.

New York’s health insurance premiums are already the highest in the lower 48 states, in part because of dozens of coverage mandates previously imposed by the Legislature.

Governor Cuomo, who ordered the study last year, included an IVF mandate in his proposed budget last month. His version would apply only to large-group policies of 100 members or more, and it would limit coverage to a maximum of three IVF cycles.

The study from the state Department of Financial Services – a rare case of state officials analyzing the costs and benefits of an insurance mandate before enacting it – said coverage for three cycles would add between 0.7 percent and 0.9 percent to premiums.

An alternative proposal from Assemblywoman Aravella Simotas and Sen. Diane Savino would apply to insurance policies of all sizes and cover an unlimited number of cycles. DFS said this version would increase premiums from 0.9 percent to 1.1 percent.

A related requirement in both versions – covering the cryogenic preservation of eggs in women undergoing chemotherapy and other procedures likely to damage their fertility – would add an estimated 0.02 percent to premiums.

Supporters of the Simotas-Savino bill have said it would increase premiums by 55 cents per member per month, or $26 a year for a family of four. The premium impact estimated by DFS – based on findings from the actuarial firm Wakely Consulting – would be about nine times higher.

The DFS estimates are roughly consistent with a 2016 analysis from Massachusetts, where an existing IVF mandate has been found to add about 1 percent to premiums.

Cuomo said he limited his proposal to large groups because of a provision of the Affordable Care Act, which requires states that impose major new mandates after 2012 to reimburse the cost for individual policyholders and small groups.

If the Simotas-Savino bill were to become law, the state would potentially owe $98 million to $116 million per year to individual and small-group policyholders, the report said.

Under Cuomo’s proposal, the cost impact would be limited to the subset of large groups that are fully insured. The majority of larger companies are “self-insured” – meaning they bear the risk of their employees’ medical costs – and federal law exempts such plans from state regulation.

Although Cuomo took pains to avoid an additional cost to state government,  his mandate would increase premiums for affected large employers by an estimated $18 million to $22 million.

The DFS study found that expanding insurance coverage for IVF would encourage women to transfer fewer embryos per cycle, which reduces the risks of the procedure, and would respond to changes in society – such as the growing numbers of women who delay childbearing because of their careers, and of same-sex couples who want to have children.

The study also acknowledged that rising premiums make insurance less affordable and could cause some New Yorkers to lose coverage:

It is difficult to predict whether any increases from mandates in these areas would cause persons to drop coverage, and how many. However, given the potential premium increases referenced above, it is likely that some number of insureds who are barely able to afford their existing coverage will drop coverage as a result of a significant rate increase, all other things being equal.

 

About the Author

Bill Hammond

As the Empire Center’s senior fellow for health policy, Bill Hammond tracks fast-moving developments in New York’s massive health care industry, with a focus on how decisions made in Albany and Washington affect the well-being of patients, providers, taxpayers and the state’s economy.

Read more by Bill Hammond

You may also like

The Attorney General’s MFCU SNAFU

Attorney General Letitia James' latest fight with the Trump administration focuses on New York's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, a federally funded agency housed in James' office. On T Read More

Healthcare Revelations in the Enacted Budget Financial Plan

The state financial plan published on June 10 disclosed key information about healthcare revenue and spending that lawmakers had not made public when approving the annual budget two weeks before. Read More

Federal Suit Traces Medicaid Fraud to the Top of NYS Government

The Trump administration's latest salvo against Medicaid fraud takes aim at a different kind of target – two high-ranking New York officials along with a major state contractor. A Read More

Healthcare Highlights in the New State Budget

Governor Hochul's focus on affordability seems to have skipped over the healthcare portions of the new state budget. The deal finalized May 27 Read More

Lawmakers Consider Hiking Fees for Filling Prescriptions

UPDATE: The proposal discussed below passed the Assembly Friday evening by an unofficial vote of 133-0. Having previously been approved by the Senate, the bill will head to Governor Hochul's desk for her signature or ve Read More

Budget Deal Reportedly Earmarks $100M for 1199 and Extends MCO Tax

As Governor Hochul and legislative leaders rush to finalize the overdue state budget, outlines of some healthcare-related deals have begun to emerge from the closed-door negotiations. Read More

Albany Wavers on Shutting Down a Medicaid Racket

As Washington threatens to crack down on fraud and abuse in New York's Medicaid program, state legislators are doing their best to demonstrate why federal intervention is needed. A Read More

Getting to the Bottom of the 340B Drug Discount Boondoggle

Some of New York's largest and most prosperous hospitals are reporting rapidly growing amounts of revenue from pharmacy sales – most of it apparently flowing from a controversial drug discount program known as 340B. Read More