scholarly journals Assessment of Health Insurance Benefit Mandates for Fertility Preservation Among 11 US States

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. e214309
Author(s):  
Ricardo E. Flores Ortega ◽  
Sara W. Yoeun ◽  
Omar Mesina ◽  
Bonnie N. Kaiser ◽  
Sara B. McMenamin ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo E Flores ◽  
Sara W Yoeun ◽  
Omar Mesian ◽  
Bonnie N Kaiser ◽  
Sara B McMenamin ◽  
...  

Objective To describe the design and implementation of state-level fertility preservation (FP) health insurance benefit mandates and regulation and to provide stakeholders with guidance on best practices, gaps, and implementation needs. Design Legal mapping and implementation framework-guided analysis Setting U.S. states with state-level fertility preservation health insurance benefit mandates Patients Individuals at risk of iatrogenic infertility Intervention State laws mandating health insurance benefit coverage for fertility preservation services. Main Outcome Measures Design features of FP mandated benefit legislation; implementation process Results Between June, 2017 and March, 2021, 11 states passed FP benefit mandate laws. On average, states took 223 days to implement their mandates from the start of the law enactment dates to their corresponding effective dates, and a majority issued regulatory guidance after the law was in effect. Significant variation was observed in which FP services were specified for inclusion or exclusion in the laws and/or regulator guidance. Federal policies impacted state level implementation, with the ACA and HIPAA guiding design of fertility preservation benefits. In addition, a majority of states referenced medical society clinical practice guidelines in the design of FP mandated benefits. Conclusions Our policy scan documented significant variation in the design and implementation of health insurance benefit mandates for FP services. Future considerations for policy development include specificity and flexibility of benefit design, reference to external clinical practice guidelines to drive benefit coverage, inclusion of Medicaid populations in required coverage, and consideration of interaction with relevant state and federal policies. In addition, key considerations for implementation include the sufficient length of time for the implementation period, regulator guidance issued prior to the law going into effect, and explicit allocation of resources for the implementation process.


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Bailey ◽  
Douglas Webber

Purpose As of 2011, the average US state had 37 health insurance benefit mandates, laws requiring health insurance plans to cover a specific treatment, condition, provider, or person. This number is a massive increase from less than one mandate per state in 1965, and the topic takes on a new significance now, when the federal government is considering many new mandates as part of the “essential health benefits” required by the Affordable Care Act. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The authors use fixed effects estimation on 1996-2010 data to determine why some states pass more mandates than others. Findings The authors find that the political strength of health care providers is the strongest determinant of mandates. Originality/value A large body of literature has attempted to evaluate the effect of mandates on health, health insurance, and the labor market. However, previous papers did not consider the political processes behind the passage of mandates. In fact, when they estimate the laws’ effect, almost all papers on the subject assume that mandates are passed at random. The paper opens the way to estimating the causal effect of mandates on health insurance and the labor market using an instrumental variables strategy that incorporates political information about why mandates get passed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document