Posted on May 25, 2015
For combat vets, VA ban on IVF coverage adds insult to injury. Thoughts?
4K
11
17
5
5
0
VA will not pick up the bill for in vitro fertilization, which fertility experts say offers those with spinal cord and genital injuries the best hope for a biological child.
Under a 23-year-old law, VA is prohibited from covering IVF. Congress adopted the ban as the result of conservative opposition to assisted reproduction and concern that some fertilized embryos might be discarded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-combat-veterans-va-ban-on-ivf-coverage-adds-insult-to-injury/2015/05/25/a5ae2940-fd8b-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html?hpid=z1
Under a 23-year-old law, VA is prohibited from covering IVF. Congress adopted the ban as the result of conservative opposition to assisted reproduction and concern that some fertilized embryos might be discarded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-combat-veterans-va-ban-on-ivf-coverage-adds-insult-to-injury/2015/05/25/a5ae2940-fd8b-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html?hpid=z1
Virginia Department of Veterans Services
Health
Wounded Warriors
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
1
1
0
That's a tough one, IVF is not a direct medical procedure related to relieving an injury. My wife and I had to do IFV and still had to pay quite an extensive portion even with medical insurance even though my wife was medically declared unable to fertilize eggs due to a preexisting condition. Now being denied coverage because of "conservative opposition to assisted reproduction" sounds vaguely like religious conservative overtones and that has no place in the decision making process. If they covered it with a copay, I have no issue because that is what other insurers do.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
It doesn't have to be direct though. If you have injuries that are indirectly related, the government is still responsible. As an example, lose a leg, and develop a limp (and further injury to the other leg), they are responsible for that other leg too.
I realize this would be an outlier case, but I "think" it applies. The injury prevents what would be a normal function, however it can be corrected with a readily available medical procedure. The fact that the procedure is not on the Vet them-self "complicates" the issue, but I don't think it completely negates the logic.
I realize this would be an outlier case, but I "think" it applies. The injury prevents what would be a normal function, however it can be corrected with a readily available medical procedure. The fact that the procedure is not on the Vet them-self "complicates" the issue, but I don't think it completely negates the logic.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I realy don't see how this is something the taxpayer should pay for. If the couple wants a child and can afford to be a parent than they should pay their own way. If they need assistance they probably are not ready to be parents.
(1)
(0)
SGT Anthony Rossi
SGT Aaron Kennedy, I respect your point of view but disagree with it.
I believe that the military has a responsability to support and care for it's injured soldiers. We all agree that the military struggles to take care of it's soldiers. It can not sustain it's current expenses much less additional expenses.
Further more should a soldier suffering from PTSD be "encouraged" to have children? If the soldier is 100% disabled should they get additional benifits after they have children. This opens up a can of worms and we dont need that right now. We need to find away to lesson the burden on our VA system to help others with more pressing issues. Thanks for your question.
I believe that the military has a responsability to support and care for it's injured soldiers. We all agree that the military struggles to take care of it's soldiers. It can not sustain it's current expenses much less additional expenses.
Further more should a soldier suffering from PTSD be "encouraged" to have children? If the soldier is 100% disabled should they get additional benifits after they have children. This opens up a can of worms and we dont need that right now. We need to find away to lesson the burden on our VA system to help others with more pressing issues. Thanks for your question.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGT Anthony Rossi I'm not looking at it from an "expense" issue. I'm looking at it from the philosophical "Service Connected Disability" Issue. It's either a Service Connected Disability or it's not. If it is, then there is an obligation to provide coverage. If it's not, then that is on the service member.
In your example of PTSD, that condition would be unrelated to IVF, therefore the VA wouldn't pay for it. But a Spinal Cord and/or Genital injury which occurred in the line of duty would be.
I'm not advocating "blanket coverage." Far from it. I'm saying that, any service connected disability (ignoring type), is supposed to be covered. If we start getting into the minutia of "well they don't need that," we can make the jump to does a vet really need prosthetic, glass eyes, etc, when there are perfectly good wheel chairs, and eye-patches that can be bought on the civilian market at their own expense?
Focusing on cost, takes us away from what is actually important. The servicemember who was maimed in service of the Nation. That's one of the few things I have zero issue paying more taxes for, if they are actually getting treated for.
In your example of PTSD, that condition would be unrelated to IVF, therefore the VA wouldn't pay for it. But a Spinal Cord and/or Genital injury which occurred in the line of duty would be.
I'm not advocating "blanket coverage." Far from it. I'm saying that, any service connected disability (ignoring type), is supposed to be covered. If we start getting into the minutia of "well they don't need that," we can make the jump to does a vet really need prosthetic, glass eyes, etc, when there are perfectly good wheel chairs, and eye-patches that can be bought on the civilian market at their own expense?
Focusing on cost, takes us away from what is actually important. The servicemember who was maimed in service of the Nation. That's one of the few things I have zero issue paying more taxes for, if they are actually getting treated for.
(0)
(0)
SGT Anthony Rossi
You make a good point here, but we have to at some point draw a line in the sand. After all should we conduct a fertility test as at enlistment. Making the enlistment cost for every soldier climb. The point I'm trying to make is that we don't have any money left to reallocate. The country is in a deficit. We have to cut up the tax payer credit card at some point.
(0)
(0)
SGT Anthony Rossi
However, we can make the argument that the military "should" cover this surgery. However, I would argue that we can not realistically from a financial position.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
With all of the cutbacks in spending we face today, extending benefits further will require deeper cuts elsewhere. I don't subscribe to the "you broke it, you bought it" approach. We can spend endless piles of money with that mindset.
The VA, as far as I know, has little, if any, reproductive medicine skills in the system. Which means they would need to build it or outsource it, neither of which is inexpensive. There is not a limitless vatt of money we have to spend on Veterans. We need to focus on treating their wounds and giving them a reasonable quality of life. You cannot fix everything nor should you try. There was risk associated with signing up, we need to be able to accept that reality not continue to have taxpayers pay the bill for every conceivable treatment.
The VA, as far as I know, has little, if any, reproductive medicine skills in the system. Which means they would need to build it or outsource it, neither of which is inexpensive. There is not a limitless vatt of money we have to spend on Veterans. We need to focus on treating their wounds and giving them a reasonable quality of life. You cannot fix everything nor should you try. There was risk associated with signing up, we need to be able to accept that reality not continue to have taxpayers pay the bill for every conceivable treatment.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google