In casualty insurance, providing for fertility preservation coverage.
HB922 would amend Pennsylvania’s Insurance Company Law of 1921 to require individual and group health insurance policies, as well as certain government-sponsored health coverage, to include fertility preservation coverage. The bill requires coverage for fertility preservation services for covered individuals up to age 45 who are at risk of iatrogenic infertility, meaning infertility caused by medical treatment. It also bars cost-sharing for the required benefits.
The covered services are broad and include consultation, diagnosis, treatment, cryopreservation and storage of eggs, sperm, embryos, ovarian tissue, and testicular tissue, as well as procedures such as intrauterine insemination, embryo biopsy, egg retrieval, assisted hatching, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ovulation induction, and in vitro fertilization, including use of donor gametes and gestational carriers. The bill also requires coverage for storage of reproductive tissue for five consecutive years, with special rules for minors and for individuals who change coverage during that period. It specifies that the Department of Health would guide certain standards and that nothing in the section may interfere with a physician’s clinical judgment.
HB922 would create a new mandated insurance benefit in Pennsylvania law by adding Section 635.11 to the Insurance Company Law of 1921. It would apply to most individual and group health insurance policies and to certain government programs, while excluding many limited-scope plans such as accident-only, dental-only, vision-only, workers’ compensation, Medicare supplement, TRICARE, and similar coverage. Insurers and government programs would have to cover fertility preservation services without preexisting-condition exclusions, waiting periods, or arbitrary limits tied to number of attempts or cost, and would need to comply on a rolling basis for new filings and renewals after the effective date.
The bill’s sponsorship and introduction suggest strong support among its House backers for expanding reproductive health coverage and reducing out-of-pocket costs for patients facing treatment-related infertility. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears framed as a health coverage expansion rather than a controversial restructuring of insurance regulation.
The main policy issues likely to draw attention are the breadth of the mandated benefit, the inclusion of in vitro fertilization and gestational carrier-related services, and the cost implications for insurers, employers, and government programs. Another possible point of contention is the age cap of 45 and the bill’s focus on iatrogenic infertility, which limits coverage to people whose fertility risk arises from medical treatment. Supporters would likely emphasize access and continuity of care for cancer patients and others undergoing fertility-threatening treatment, while opponents may focus on premium impacts, mandate scope, and whether the state should require coverage for advanced reproductive technologies.