I’m confused about what’s presented in the article. The article says that to qualify for IVF the couple must be unable to conceive through IUI and that this requirement prevents gay men from accessing IVF. In the article’s conclusion it says that gay men can only have biological children through IVF. That doesn’t appear to be true.
That organization says that it is an option for gay men to use a surrogate and have a biological child through IUI. It wasn’t the only one I found when I searched, “can a gay male couple use IUI with a surrogate”.
Gay couples should have insurance coverage for and access to infertility care but is it unreasonable for an insurance company to say that a simpler cheaper alternative that produces an equivalent result (IUI) must be ruled out before it will cover the more complex procedure (IVF)?
Where is the disconnect? Will the insurance not cover IUI unless the procedure is preformed on the insured? Why jump to IVF and dismiss the simpler procedure? Why make IVF specifically the center of the argument instead of infertility treatment in general?
But the surrogate would receive IUI or IVF, and in almost every case you attempt IUI first. I’ve had friends go through IVF, it’s a lot of daily shots, drugs, and at least two days of inpatient surgery. IUI is much simpler.
**ps:**The article doesn’t mention IUI, but I think you might be right that since neither covered partner is receiving IUI/IVF, the coverage isn’t there.
The city requires people wanting to access IVF services to be infertile, which it defines as an inability to conceive through heterosexual sex or intrauterine insemination—a set of criteria which disqualifies only gay men.
It’s the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, the article writes it out instead of abbreviating.
Yeah the procedure would be performed on the surrogate either way. Something’s just not making sense to me. Since the couple the article is about have been to Drs and are living it and the complaint has already gone through a 2 year review process I assume that the article is just missing some important piece of info.
I’m confused about what’s presented in the article. The article says that to qualify for IVF the couple must be unable to conceive through IUI and that this requirement prevents gay men from accessing IVF. In the article’s conclusion it says that gay men can only have biological children through IVF. That doesn’t appear to be true.
https://www.scrcivf.com/lgbtq-fertility-faq/
That organization says that it is an option for gay men to use a surrogate and have a biological child through IUI. It wasn’t the only one I found when I searched, “can a gay male couple use IUI with a surrogate”.
Gay couples should have insurance coverage for and access to infertility care but is it unreasonable for an insurance company to say that a simpler cheaper alternative that produces an equivalent result (IUI) must be ruled out before it will cover the more complex procedure (IVF)?
Where is the disconnect? Will the insurance not cover IUI unless the procedure is preformed on the insured? Why jump to IVF and dismiss the simpler procedure? Why make IVF specifically the center of the argument instead of infertility treatment in general?
I’m making assumptions here to fill in some gaps, but I assume they mean that since neither partner can receive IUI, they don’t get the benefit.
But the surrogate would receive IUI or IVF, and in almost every case you attempt IUI first. I’ve had friends go through IVF, it’s a lot of daily shots, drugs, and at least two days of inpatient surgery. IUI is much simpler.
**ps:**The article doesn’t mention IUI, but I think you might be right that since neither covered partner is receiving IUI/IVF, the coverage isn’t there.
It’s the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, the article writes it out instead of abbreviating.
Yeah the procedure would be performed on the surrogate either way. Something’s just not making sense to me. Since the couple the article is about have been to Drs and are living it and the complaint has already gone through a 2 year review process I assume that the article is just missing some important piece of info.