[CAToso]

Something else to consider on this topic is that not everyone who adopts is unable to have biological children. If insurance were to offer some flat fee amount of coverage toward adoption expenses, would anyone be eligible, or would you have to be clinically infertile? Would that be considered discrimination if the company offered me $5,000 toward my adoption because I can't have a bio baby, but refused to offer the same benefit to the girl in the next office who chose adoption without infertility? (I think it would, and companies would be opening themselves to discrimination lawsuits, etc.)

I'm very lucky that my health insurance offers a $10,000 infertility benefit, but that is very rare in my area of the country. Would I be thrilled if they wanted to pay $10,000 of my adoption expenses? Absolutely, but I'd still be baffled as to how that's considered a "health insurance" issue. I sure wouldn't turn down the benefit though.

I think this is why some employers offer an adoption assistance benefit. My company offers $2,500, which is considerably less than they assist with infertility expenses, but I'm still grateful to have it.

~Courtney

[mimc]

Interesting discussion. For the record, my health insurance will provide a set amount for infertility treatment ($5,000 I think). The odd thing is that they will NOT cover fertility drugs, but they will cover procedures, including IVF. I'm still scratching my head over that one, but I guess by the time you get to IVF, you've already incurred more than $5,000 in costs because of testing and such.

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (and found on dictionary.com because I'm too lazy to go search for my real dictionary):

in·fer·til·i·ty
1. Absent or diminished fertility.
2. The persistent inability to conceive a child.

By that definition, adoption isn't a "treatment" for infertility because it doesn't result in you conceiving a child.

Do I wish adoption were less expensive or that there was at least some consistency in the cost to adopt? Heck yes! But I don't believe that requiring health insurance companies to cover adoption expenses is right, especially when millions of Americans, inclulding children, lack access to basic health care.

[cr653]

i thought I was the only one who tried this route.

i called TWICE and begged explained etc.
that THIS was how i was having another child...adoption,
and SO how about the fees going towards a regular, uncomplicated birth applying...

needless to say it was a "no go",
and i think the lady thought i was nuts.

like she said,
they are an 'insurance' company to pay for HEALTH of patients
which is why a birth is covered...for the medical care of the mother and child....

it makes sense, but still....

cris...

[Linny]

Cris:
A few years ago, I basically did what you did. I merely asked the 'powers that be in the insurance company'---stating that adoption WAS our way to have a child. (*You'd think that the insurance company would be thrilled that couples are going this route rather than the expense of IVF stuff!)
But, the 'health' part of it was the same excuse. Still, personally, I do not regard IVF treatments as a "health' issue. Just my opinion.
And, the point that IF insurance companies DID pay some flat money toward adoption.....would they exclude those who were infertile, is a good one. (Never thought about that either.... )

In our case, we chose adoption, never intending to get pregnant for various reasons. It was bad enough that with our first two adoptions, we had to 'prove' why were weren't going the pregnancy route. And, to date, I've heard that some agencies still won't work with couples who have chosen the adoption route over the pg route!!!!!!!

Nonetheless, this is a good discussion and I continue to thank everyone who is participating with their views!

Sincerely,

Linny

[mimc]

Originally Posted by Linny

In our case, we chose adoption, never intending to get pregnant for various reasons. It was bad enough that with our first two adoptions, we had to 'prove' why were weren't going the pregnancy route. And, to date, I've heard that some agencies still won't work with couples who have chosen the adoption route over the pg route!!!!!!!

How do you "prove" that you aren't ttc? Did you have to show a birth control prescription or something?

[NJNative]

The bottom line is that health insurance is intended to pay for medical treatment for you and your covered dependents. Period. Asking them to pay for adoption would be equivalent to asking your dental insurance to pay for eye surgery.

And with costs and premiums skyrocketing, paying for adoption is out of the question. You'd have a much better shot at getting an employer to offer adoption benefits from the company, which many already do.

When we adopted back in 1991, we got nothing -- nada. No adoption benefits from our employers (mine started them a year later), no tax credit (it wasn't passed until after that). We paid cash and we had to pay it all within the 40 days the adoption took.

I tease my son and tell him I got him with my bonus check -- and I did use it to pay the lawyer's initial fee.

Robin

[sadiegirl]

I have to agree; adoption isn't really a health issue so they shouldn't be required to pay for it. And Linny, I can see how IVF could not be deemed a "health" issue but MANY MANY providers DON'T pay for IVF and all the other crap that goes with it. Much like providers won't pay for weight loss or plastic surgery, altho one could argue WL surgery is definitely a "health" issue!

[Pat Johnston]

Insurance companies don't make these decisions--policy owners do. So it is the employer who offers an insurance plan, for example, who determines what services they are willing to pay for from a "menu" that the insurance company offers.

BUT increasing numbers of employers DO offer adoption assistance grants (there's lots of ammunition available to help you lobby for one from your employer). And the federal government offers tax breaks for adopters, but not for those who give birth.

Pat Johnston
Infertility and Adoption Educator, amom to three

[Vogi2002]

Right but infertility services (which in my opinion ARE a health issue the same as ED is for men, which is covered) offered in states that don't have it mandatory are outrageously priced, so many employers DON'T have it. I understand IVF not being covered, but the basic tests, etc with infertility, IMO, should be mandatory coverage....again just my opinion. But no one really questions ED being covered for men (and I actually DO agree with this being covered) and it affects the same amount of poeple....

[Linny]

How do you "prove" that you aren't ttc? Did you have to show a birth control prescription or something? --mimc

We had to talk to the MD and have him document our seriousness in choosing adoption. One of the reasons we chose to adopt, was because we did not believe in 'passing on the possibility of diabetes and severe early onset arthritis' to any bio children. (We also are big into the fact that we think there are already too many children in the world, and we never cared that we didn't have a child/baby that didn't look like us.)
Soooo, even though we did not actively have either of those diseases ourselves, we had personal convictions of laying out those genes to innocent kids. (We had seen too many family members suffer the effects of these maladies.) The MD had to document the possibilities of passing on these genes; and that document had to be taken back to the adoption agency.

We've adopted several times, and have had different agencies. (We were military for several years.) At one agency, before we could adopt, we had to take a marriage test (required of every couple)---individually and separately. It was so silly in that we had been married for 17yrs....and the questions bluntly asked things like, "How satisfied are you with your sex life?" "How often do you have sex in a month?"

Quite probing, to say the least! (You don't see bio parents taking something like this before having babies, do you?!?!?!? )

Sincerely,

Linny

[NJNative]

Originally Posted by Pat Johnston

Insurance companies don't make these decisions--policy owners do. So it is the employer who offers an insurance plan, for example, who determines what services they are willing to pay for from a "menu" that the insurance company offers.

BUT increasing numbers of employers DO offer adoption assistance grants (there's lots of ammunition available to help you lobby for one from your employer). And the federal government offers tax breaks for adopters, but not for those who give birth.

Pat Johnston
Infertility and Adoption Educator, amom to three

But you are missing the point that unless the plan is self-insured (the employer pays all the claims), the provider sets the price for those services. And it works more like a Chinese take out menu -- the employer chooses services from column A and B. But the amount of premiums the employer pays is based on the services it chooses to provide its employees. So, for example, if an employer opts to pay for something like fertility treatments, the premiums for both the employer and all the employees go up.

Can you tell I wrote employee benefits materials for a living? LOL.

A better option is encouraging employers to provide adoption benefits.

Robin

[Emster]

When we were going thru all the infertility stuff, it really burned my butt that my company's insurance company would pay to TERMINATE a pregnancy for any reason (not just life threatening), but would not pay for any infertility meds or procedures. Just goes to show that company's incredibly financially motivated--termination is the cheaper route. All personal moral and ethical opinions aside...it just plain ticked me off and I told them so. I am no longer covered on that plan.

[NJNative]

For years, most insurance providers would pay for pregnancy and birth but NOT for birth control pills. Go figure.

[heartbeat]

Much as I dislike insurance companies and much as I would have liked to have a child any way I could and have insurance pay for it, becoming a parent doesn't have anything to do with health, and that's insurance's yardstick. Yes, tests are needed to see if someone is infertile - but the goal is to have a child. I can see insurance paying for tests that determine fertility, because that relates to body functions and finding out why this body isn't doing as expected. AI and procedures surrounding it have nothing to do with health. Insurance pays for those who have their own children because bearing children is one of things women have done since time began. It's not always a choice, but is a result of the body doing what it's supposed to due under certain circumstances, which is why it will pay for termination. Adoption and AI procedures are clearly a choice. Adoption can't squeeze by as remotely related to health, but IF it were covered, it makes sense to only apply to those who can't physically have biological children since that's at least physical and thinly related to health, whereas simply wanting to adopt, along with having biological children, isn't.

What irks me is that, as usual, it all boils down to money. If you work for a large company that can afford pricey insurance, you're covered for things others aren't. Or if you pay for your own, you decide how much you're willing to spend on insurance, and that gives you the opportunity to buy coverage that others can't, or, if you don't have the money, you do without coverage that others have.

Like seemingly everything it this world, it's about the buck and who has it. Is it any wonder many of us grow up basing our worth on how much we have materially?

heartbeat

[Vogi2002]

Originally Posted by heartbeat

It's not always a choice, but is a result of the body doing what it's supposed to due under certain circumstances, which is why it will pay for termination. Adoption and AI procedures are clearly a choice.

Sorry, that made me shudder. Termination is a heck of a lot more of a choice (in most cases) than infertility is....

Sorry, didn't mean to bring a debate or anything...that comment just hit me wrong...