A BILL to amend and reenact § 38.2-4319 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 1 of Chapter 34 of Title 38.2 a section numbered 38.2-3418.23, relating to health insurance; coverage for standard fertility preservation procedures.
HB1389 would require most Virginia health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and subscription contract providers to cover “standard fertility preservation procedures” for people facing a risk of infertility because of cancer, sickle cell disease, or another medical condition, or because they are expected to undergo treatments such as medication therapy, surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy that are medically recognized as likely to impair fertility. The bill defines the covered procedures by reference to established medical guidelines from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The bill also specifies that this fertility preservation coverage cannot be treated more restrictively than coverage for other illnesses or conditions when insurers apply deductibles, benefit-year or lifetime limits, copayments, coinsurance, or related cost-sharing rules. It applies to individual and group accident and sickness policies, subscription contracts, and health care plans delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed in Virginia on or after January 1, 2027. The bill excludes certain products, including short-term travel, accident-only, limited or specified disease policies, short-term nonrenewable policies, Medicare-related plans, and similar governmental coverage, and it amends existing statutory construction provisions to incorporate the new mandate into Virginia’s insurance code.
In practical terms, HB1389 would expand mandated health insurance benefits in Virginia and place a new coverage requirement on insurers and HMOs operating in the state. It would affect the administration of health plans by requiring coverage for fertility preservation services when medically indicated, while also limiting insurers’ ability to impose separate or more restrictive cost-sharing or benefit limits on that coverage. The bill would become part of Title 38.2 of the Code of Virginia and would be enforced through the state’s insurance regulatory framework.
The available context shows no recorded committee discussion or votes, and the bill was left in the House Labor and Commerce Committee. As a result, there is no documented floor debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative sentiment. Based on the bill’s subject matter, the measure appears to be a health-care access proposal aimed at helping patients preserve fertility before potentially sterilizing treatment, but the committee outcome suggests it did not advance during this stage of the process.
Because there are no transcripts, the main point of contention can only be inferred from the bill’s structure: supporters would likely favor expanded access to fertility preservation for patients facing cancer or other fertility-threatening conditions, while opponents or skeptics may focus on the cost of a new insurance mandate, the scope of covered plans, and the administrative burden on insurers. The exclusions for certain plan types and the delayed effective date suggest the bill was drafted with implementation and market-impact concerns in mind.
HB1389 would add a new mandated-benefit provision to Virginia’s health insurance laws by creating § 38.2-3418.23 and conforming § 38.2-4319 to include the new section in the statutory framework governing health maintenance organizations. It would require coverage for medically indicated fertility preservation procedures in most individual and group accident and sickness policies, subscription contracts, and health care plans, while excluding several limited or government-related plan types. The bill would apply prospectively to policies and plans issued, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, thereby affecting insurers, HMOs, and covered patients seeking fertility-preserving care before treatments that may impair fertility.
There is no committee transcript or vote record available, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call. The available legislative history shows only that HB1389 was referred to and then left in the Labor and Commerce Committee, indicating that it did not advance. On its face, the bill reflects a pro-access health coverage policy, likely appealing to advocates for cancer patients and reproductive health coverage, but the lack of movement suggests either limited support, unresolved fiscal concerns, or committee inaction.
No direct points of contention are documented in transcripts, but the likely areas of dispute are the cost and scope of a new insurance mandate, the definition of “standard fertility preservation procedures,” and whether insurers should be required to cover these services for a broad set of medical conditions and treatments. Insurers and employers may object to premium impacts and administrative complexity, while patient advocates and medical groups would likely support the measure as a medically necessary protection for people at risk of infertility. The bill’s exclusions for short-term, limited, and Medicare-related plans also suggest an effort to narrow the mandate, which may have been part of the policy negotiation.