State workers' insurance could cover storing sperm, eggs for cancer patients
TALLAHASSEE — Florida lawmakers are acting to expand state worker healthcare benefits to allow men and women undergoing chemotherapy — treatment that could make them sterile — to store their sperm and eggs for up to three years.
Similar bills were approved with unanimous, bipartisan support in both House and Senate committees Tuesday.
'Ensuring that the State Group Insurance Program in Florida covers standard fertility preservation services is crucial for individuals facing medical treatments that may compromise their ability to have children in the future,' Rep. Dana Trabulsy, R-Fort Pierce, said about her bill.
Egg, sperm or embryo freezing is a vital component of comprehensive healthcare, she said, and without insurance coverage such procedures can be too expensive for most families.
'In a time where women's reproductive rights vary, I appreciate this bill for its impact on cancer patients, who must make life-saving decisions that put their bodies' ability to carry a child at risk,' Rep. Dotie Joseph, D-North Miami, said. 'At least they have a shot at still bringing children into the world.'
The bill is supported by the Chick Mission, a nonprofit organization founded by cancer survivor Amanda Rice after her insurance didn't cover her infertility treatments. The organization has been advocating for states and employer-sponsored insurance plans to include fertility preservation services.
Nineteen states provide some form of fertility preservation coverage, according to the National Infertility Association.
Florida's health insurance program covers various forms of birth control and other reproductive services, but doesn't mandate in vitro fertilization or other reproductive therapies. The bill would not require the program to cover fertility testing and treatment to assist in achieving pregnancy, including in-vitro fertilization (IVF), artificial insemination, and other methods, according to a legislative bill analysis.
The bill requires new policies issued after January 1, 2026 to cover 'medically necessary expenses' related to standard fertility preservation services for workers of reproductive age who have been diagnosed with cancer and whose treatment may cause infertility.
Coverage must include the costs of storing the eggs, sperm or embryos for up to three years.
The bill prohibits the state health insurance provider from requiring preauthorization to cover the fertility preservation services, but they may be subject to a deductible or copayment depending on the type of policy.
About 1.36 % of the 300,000 people in the state health insurance plan could be affected at a cost of about $800,000 a year, Trabulsy said.
'As someone with a close family member with cancer, I have seen the problems that play out,' said Sen. Alexis Calatayud, R-Miami, sponsor of the Senate bill. She said this will help people in similar situations who want families some day.
She also said she hoped it would open the door to a broader conversation about fertility treatments.
As someone who has dealt with infertility herself, Rep. Robin Bartleman, D-Weston, said making fertility preservation available could be a 'game changer' for 'state employees who want to have a family.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Tariffs Are Planned for Appliances Made With Steel
A law that expired last year was meant to compensate civilians sickened by the legacy of the nation's aboveground nuclear testing program, as well as uranium miners. Senate Republicans on Thursday included in their version of President Trump's domestic policy bill a provision that would revive and significantly expand a law for compensating victims of government-caused nuclear contamination who developed cancer and other serious illnesses. The measure, long championed by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, would overhaul a law passed more than three decades ago with a narrow scope. It was meant to compensate civilians sickened by the legacy of the nation's aboveground nuclear testing program, a hallmark of the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, and uranium miners who worked between 1942 and 1971. It paid out more than $2.6 billion in benefits to more than 55,000 claimants since its creation in 1990. The Senate passed bipartisan legislation last year to substantially broaden the scope of that law — called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA — beyond Cold War-era victims to cover others who have been harmed by the aftereffects in the decades since. But after Republican leaders refused to allow it to come to a vote on the House floor, the law expired, dashing hopes of compensation for sickened civilians. Senate Republican leaders are now, at the behest of Mr. Hawley, giving the measure another shot at passage, including it in the Senate version of the domestic policy bill that they are hoping to pass in weeks. He is considered a key vote on the bill because he opposes several provisions floated by his party for cutting Medicaid. 'I think about, in the St. Louis area alone, how many folks I've talked to whose grandfathers or grandmothers were involved with the radiation project and whose families have subsequently had cancer in the family for generations,' Mr. Hawley said in an interview. 'And they're very proud of their service to the nation, but they would like to be thanked for that and be treated appropriately and not lied to anymore by their government.' The measure would revive the law and authorize its compensation fund to run for another two years. It would also expand eligibility to include civilians in the swaths of New Mexico, Utah and Arizona that were previously excluded from benefits coverage. And it would for the first time allow residents in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky and Alaska — sites where workers processed uranium for the nation's nuclear program — who were exposed to nuclear contamination to be eligible for benefits. Mr. Hawley's involvement in the issue stems from St. Louis's history with the atomic bomb. Scientists first began churning out uranium for the Manhattan Project in 1942 at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works factory there. But over the next several decades, hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste stored in open steel drums were hauled and dumped across the city. The waste seeped into the city's soil, including on land that later became ball fields, and into Coldwater Creek, a tributary that snakes through the metropolitan area for 19 miles through backyards and public parks. Rare cancers, autoimmune diseases and other mysterious illnesses have since spread through the community. Lawmakers like Mr. Hawley have maintained that the government should help foot residents' health care bills. Asked whether the inclusion of the measure might encourage him to support his party's domestic policy bill despite his concerns about the legislation's Medicaid provisions, Mr. Hawley suggested that it could. 'This will really dramatically increase the availability of health care for people in my state,' he said. 'If you are a RECA claimant, if you are a nuclear radiation survivor, then you're going to get a lot of help with your medical bills here. So what this is going to mean, practically in Missouri, is a lot of people are going to get a lot more access to health care, which is really, really important.' Mr. Hawley continued: 'So, I still have concerns about Medicaid, and believe me, I'm talking about those on an almost hourly basis now with my leadership. But this is a big, big deal, and not just for my state. This is going to be a big deal for a lot of people, and it's going to help a lot of people get health care.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trans youth health care choices are for families, not government to decide
When Michigan parents need to make a medical decision for their child, they know whose input they want: their child's doctor and health care team, their family and friends and other trusted people in their lives who they know will put their child's well-being first. But as a family medicine doctor, I've never seen a parent wonder what their state legislator thinks. They frequently wonder what the best research shows, or ask about the established guidelines of reputable medical organizations, but they don't ask their house representative if they should breastfeed, nor their senator if they should have a C-section. Parents have always been entrusted with having conversations with medical professionals, weighing the evidence, and making the best decisions for their children. Why, then, are Republicans in Lansing trying to take away parents' ability to decide what medical care is right for their children? Why are they pushing harmful legislation (House Bills 4466-4468) that would criminalize pediatricians for following the recommendations of every major medical association in the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists? Because transgender children have become the new political scapegoat, and legislators who do not know them, their stories, their families, their dreams, or anything about their medical care do not trust parents to make thoughtful, informed decisions on what's best for their future. Parents considering what type of care their child needs deserve the right to talk individually with trained experts; to have their questions answered privately; to engage with a full care team of physicians, psychologists, and social workers; to receive detailed, specific information that applies to their child and their needs, free from bias and government interference. Kids and their families need our support, not our government's targeted legislative attack. The truth is, most of these parents already know intimately what the research has proven time and again: Medical care for transgender young people is life-saving care. These vulnerable children are more likely to be bullied, threatened and attempt suicide than their peers. Providing essential medical care ensures access to social, medical and psychological support while navigating the complexities of adolescence and leads to improved emotional health outcomes. Those who claim to sincerely question this health care are also in favor of banning further research – a convenient solution, and not one genuinely invested in people's well-being. Transgender young people are already on the frontline of so many fights for which they did not ask. We cannot allow the government to ban essential medical care and criminalize healthcare providers who have dedicated their lives to helping all children – not just the ones who fit a certain mold. Attempts to ban medical care makes these children more depressed, anxious and vulnerable. This legislation will only make kids less safe. You don't need to know everything about transgender people or transgender health care to know that it's wrong for the government to interfere with parents and doctors making personal health care decisions that follow all major medical guidelines, and it's wrong for Republican legislators to bully a small group of children who make up less than 1% of the population and use them as political pawns to distract us from real issues facing Michiganders. You only need to know that parents need the freedom to make decisions for their children's health care in the privacy of their doctor's office, without having the harmful rhetoric of extremist politicians forced upon them. That's the kind of protection transgender young people really need right now. Dr. Lauren Snyder is a board-certified family medicine physician in Michigan. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Trans youth and their families need no government meddling | Opinion
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
What's in RI's proposed $14.3B budget? Help for primary care, RIPTA funds and 'Taylor Swift tax'
PROVIDENCE – Rhode Island House Democrats have unveiled a new $14.3 billion state budget that seeks to bolster the finances of primary care doctors, hospitals and nursing homes without raising income taxes on the wealthy. The proposed tax and spending plan for the year starting July 1 would raise Medicaid reimbursement rates to inject, including federal dollars, $45 million into primary care, $38 million into hospitals and $12 million into nursing homes. Funding for primary care practices would come in part from a new health insurance fee estimated to generate $30 million per year. Although it spares the well-heeled an income tax hike, the House budget resurrects a tax proposed a decade ago on second homes worth more than $1 million, branded the "Taylor Swift tax" after the Watch Hill vacation home of the famous pop star. Proceeds would go to fund the state's low-income housing tax credit. The budget would inject $15 million into the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, the same amount of money lawmakers added to the statewide bus system a year ago but less than half of the $33 million the agency says it needs to plug a budget hole and avoid service cuts. The extra RIPTA funding will come from a 3-cent-per-gallon hike in the gas tax slated to go into effect July 1 and tweaks to the formula that distributes transportation funds. A 1-cent-per-gallon increase in the gas tax is already set to go into effect in July. The budget, a rewrite of the $14.2 billion tax and spending plan Gov. Dan McKee proposed in January, was quickly passed on an 11-3 vote by the House Finance Committee on June 10, setting it up for a vote before the full House on June 17. "All our colleagues have heard, the Senate has heard and we decided that we needed to take action now," House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi told reporters about the money for primary care. "We've heard that our reimbursement rates are low, and that's the primary cause of the health care shortage. We wanted to address that immediately." Senate President Valarie Lawson in an email applauded budget investments in healthcare, RIPTA and child care, suggesting it won't have much trouble passing that chamber. As expected, the House abandoned several of McKee's proposals, including a 50-cent hike in the cigarette tax, buying an office building from Citizens Bank in East Providence and a tax on digital advertising that the governor hoped would pull in $9.5 million next year and $23.5 million annually by 2030. But the House budget agreed with the governor on other proposals, including a new fee on electric vehicles and charging the state's 5% hotel tax to short-term rentals of whole homes on sites such as Airbnb. Other budget highlights include: Truck tolls. The House accepted McKee's plan to turn on the legal-again tolls on tractor trailers in the first half of 2026 and collect an estimated $10 million in state revenue. Washington Bridge: $22 million in state dollars to match federal funds to build a new westbound Washington Bridge. Education: The House proposal would spend $16.5 million more on education than McKee proposed and $59 million more than the current-year budget. Conveyance tax: A 63% increase in the real estate conveyance tax on all home purchases, which doubles for the portion of a sale over $800,000 is proposed with proceeds going to services for homeless Rhode Islanders. The tax increase is projected to raise $8.4 million next year. Airbnb: Extends the 5% state hotel tax to whole-house rentals, something lawmakers rejected last year but McKee's budget expects will generate $4.7 million per year, with a part of the collections also going to homeless services. DMV: A $1 hike in the Division of Motor Vehicles "technology fee" to $3.50 per transaction. Superman Building: The House budget included a provision, already passed as a standalone bill in the Senate, that would exempt the owner of the vacant Industrial Trust Tower in Providence from sales tax on construction materials while claiming a maximum in other state incentives. Parking: The state's 7% sales tax would be charged to parking, generating $3.2 million per year. Nicotine pouches: The tax applied to the wholesale cost of tobacco products would be expanded to synthetic nicotine pouches such as Zyn, generating $12 million per year. Vacation home tax: The "Taylor Swift Tax" would not go into effect until the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2026 and no estimate was provided of how much it would eventually raise. Longtime advocates of increasing taxes on Rhode Island's highest-earning residents hoped the budget pressure facing the state this year would convince top lawmakers that the time was now right to do it. They proposed a 3% surcharge on income above $625,000, which was estimated to generate $190 million in annual revenue. And as lawmakers waited for the final details of the budget to be hammered out on June 10, the Working Families Party camped outside the State House with a box truck showing illuminated messages of support for a tax hike, such as, "Save Rhode Island. Tax the Rich." But Shekarchi told reporters that lawmakers decided against a tax hike, at least until the state knows whether Congress is going to pass a tax cut bill that could slash Medicaid funding and shift more costs to states. "We don't know what's going to happen in Washington," Shekarchi said. "We don't know what changes are going to be made in the federal tax code. We felt comfortable enough to do the non-owner-occupied taxes over a million dollars at this time, and we will revisit that issue when we have more clarity from Washington." But Working Families Political Director Zack Mezera said what's happening in Washington is even more reason to make the "1% pay their fair share," not an excuse. 'Today's budget shows that state leadership would rather raise gas taxes for working families than increase taxes on millionaires," Mezera wrote in a news release. "As President Trump and his allies advance destructive cuts that could cause over 240,000 Rhode Islanders to lose Medicaid and hundreds of educators and care workers to lose their jobs, we need bold action to raise revenue now – otherwise working people and small businesses will be paying the price for years." With $15 million from the budget to fill a $33 million projected shortfall, it looks as though RIPTA is going to need to scale back what it does, but Shekarchi said it would not necessarily mean large layoffs or route cuts. "I think they need to look at everything," he said. "Maybe it's smaller buses, maybe it's addressing the ride schedule, maybe it's a slight fare increase, maybe it's looking at management positions. That's why we mandated, when we gave them $15 million last year, they do an efficiency study and find out the solutions." Despite the prospect of having to make painful cuts this summer, RIPTA CEO Christopher Durand said the bus system is "grateful" for the additional permanent state revenue. "The agency has long needed a consistent funding stream to allow us to better support getting Rhode Islanders to work, school and healthcare," he said in an email. "The last time the agency saw a permanent change in its funding structure was over ten years ago; this is a needed improvement, which we are thankful for." This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RI's proposed $14.3B budget: Primary care; RIPTA; 'Taylor Swift tax'
