City Council member Helen Gym last week introduced a bill that she says would make available to all city workers in-vitro fertilization coverage, egg-freezing coverage and related infertility treatments.
At presstime, Gym’s office said the bill would make the coverage available to all 23,000 city workers. But a Kenney spokesperson believed the bill only would apply to about 6,000 city workers in a city health plan that’s mainly utilized by non-union workers.
Some unionized city workers already have IVF and related infertility-treatment coverage. But there’s no city law mandating the coverage.
Last year, the Kenney administration discontinued IVF coverage for about 5,000 non-union workers and 1,000 union workers, citing financial constraints.
Fertilization normally occurs within a fallopian tube, which transports a fertilized egg to the uterus for implantation. In-vitro fertilization involves combining a sperm and an egg in a laboratory, rather than inside a uterus. A woman may opt to freeze her eggs for a future pregnancy. Women choose IVF for a variety of reasons, including because they’re in a same-sex relationship, are single or have experienced medical complications.
“The choice to have children is a deeply personal one, and the freedom to build a family, in whatever ways we choose, is at the center of what it means to be human,” Gym said in an email. “For many of us, though, this choice isn’t simple — and isn’t free. That’s why I introduced legislation to mandate that all city health-insurance plans cover medically assisted pregnancy care, including egg freezing and in-vitro fertilization. This is particularly important for our LGBT families, single women and those facing infertility.”
Gym expressed pride in helping to set a standard of care that other communities can emulate.
“I am incredibly proud to be part of a city that is setting a standard of care that should be the model for the nation — particularly for our LGB and trans communities. We do this because we believe in the right of each one of us to assert our fullest humanity. That’s why we cover transitioning and paid sick leave — and that’s why IVF and other medically assisted pregnancy procedures must be included in city insurance plans. These are treatments for which all people should have coverage, and it’s important to note that we’re not alone in expanding access. Fifteen states offer infertility treatment as part of their insurance coverage, and eight states, including New Jersey, mandate IVF coverage across all insurance plans. Increasingly, we’re understanding that the right to have a family includes the responsibility to cover the medical costs associated with it.”
Jane Slusser, Mayor Kenney’s chief of staff, explained the administration’s decision to discontinue IVF coverage in a city health plan mainly utilized by non-union city workers.
“We were unfortunately unable to continue this [IVF] coverage in 2017 due to other rising health-care costs,” Slusser said in an email. “We’ve been able to avoid employee-contribution increases for the past four years and wanted to continue doing so.”
Asked whether Kenney supports Gym’s bill, Slusser said: “It was a difficult decision to remove this coverage. So we’re certainly supportive of improving health-care coverage for our employees. We had recently expressed to various Council members that we would be reevaluating our options when reviewing our plans for next year. We look forward to further conversations with Councilwoman Gym and her colleagues. It’s simply been a matter of costs and budgetary constraints.”
Slusser added: “The legislation, and my answers, apply only to those employees (about 6,000) covered by the City Administered Health Plan (CAP). This includes about 1,000 members of District Council 33 [city blue-collar workers] who opted into CAP.”
Slusser also said it might have been possible to resolve the matter without legislation.
“We had recently indicated to interested Council members that we would be reevaluating options for next year’s health-care insurance options. We are able to make changes to our health-care coverage each year as we finalize the city-administered plan. We have had ongoing discussions about this matter with Council members, and look forward to further discussions. I would note that Council could have requested additional funding for this in the fiscal-year 2018 budget process, but did not.”
Kenney spokesperson Mike Dunn added that the city Law Department advised that Gym’s bill would not all apply to all city workers.
“We checked again with the Law Department. They advise us that Jane Slusser’s statement of last week is correct: The bill in its current form would apply only to employees covered by the city-sponsored benefit plan,” Dunn said.
A spokesperson for Gym noted that, “As the legislative process moves forward, we’ll be working with the administration to define the scope of coverage and applicability.”
Gym’s bill, introduced May 25, has 11 cosponsors.
Council member Bill Greenlee is a cosponsor.
“We should provide any reproductive-health coverage necessary to our valued employees,” Greenlee told PGN. “From a budgeting standpoint, providing this treatment will minimally impact our fund costs while enabling our colleagues to use an important benefit to help them start or expand their families.”
A public hearing on the proposal hadn’t been scheduled by presstime.