For combat vets, VA ban on IVF coverage adds insult to injury. Thoughts?

2015-05-25T17:28:10-04:00

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

What Veterans Affairs won’t pay for: Chance for the wounded to have kids

Congress prohibited the VA from covering the fertility procedure 23 years ago over fears that some fertilized embryos might be discarded. But now efforts are underway to overturn that ban.

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made May 25 at 2015 5:32 PM

2015-05-25T17:32:18-04:00

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.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 25 at 2015 5:43 PM

2015-05-25T17:43:49-04:00

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.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 25 at 2015 6:01 PM

2015-05-25T18:01:35-04:00

This is tricky.

I mention below in response to other posts, but I'm taking a simple:

"You broke it, you bought it" approach.

If a service member would have been able to conceive prior to service-related injuries, and is now not able to, that is a service related disability, and the government has an obligation to correct said deficit. That is part of the deal we have when we write that blank check. We take care of the Nation, they take care of us.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made May 25 at 2015 6:46 PM

2015-05-25T18:46:13-04:00

May violate ACA requirements depending on the state they live in. If the state requires it then ACA would require it. If ACA requires it, the VA could be violating the 14th Amendment. Vets should check with the veteran's service organizations in their state.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2015 7:20 PM

2015-05-25T19:20:53-04:00

Sucks for us too being that my wife and I can't reproduce for a number of reasons. I'm all for adoption, just trying to convince her how noble it is with thousands of children out there looking for a loving home

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made May 26 at 2015 10:50 AM

2015-05-26T10:50:27-04:00

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.