HOPE with Fertility Services Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 26, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to expand access to fertility treatments by requiring most employer-sponsored health plans to cover a comprehensive range of services for infertility and iatrogenic infertility, with federal oversight and enforcement.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group health insurance coverage that provide obstetrical services must also cover infertility and iatrogenic infertility treatments. It defines these conditions and treatments, establishes parity requirements for coverage limits and cost-sharing, prohibits certain discriminatory practices by plans, and sets forth detailed requirements for the analysis and reporting of utilization management tools, enforced by civil penalties.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill addresses a significant gap in healthcare coverage, recognizing infertility as a disease and ensuring individuals facing medical treatments that cause infertility (iatrogenic infertility) have options for family building. They contend it promotes health equity and reduces the substantial financial and emotional burden on individuals seeking essential reproductive care.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that mandating coverage could increase healthcare premiums for employers and individuals, leading to higher costs across the board. Concerns could also be raised about the broad scope of mandated treatments and the significant administrative burdens on health plans to comply with new reporting and analysis requirements, potentially diverting resources.
The bill is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing an informed reader to quickly grasp its core provisions and implications.
Section 2(a), inserting new Section 714A(a) into ERISA.
Required Coverage for Infertility and Iatrogenic Infertility Treatments
This provision mandates that group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group health insurance coverage, if they cover obstetrical services, must also provide coverage for infertility treatments. It further requires coverage for standard fertility preservation services when a medically necessary treatment (such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy) is expected to cause iatrogenic infertility.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures equitable access to essential reproductive healthcare, recognizing infertility as a medical condition and providing crucial support for individuals and families in their journey to build families.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this mandate could lead to increased premiums for all plan participants, potentially making healthcare less affordable for some, and that employers should retain flexibility in designing benefit packages.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to expand access to fertility treatments against potential increases in healthcare costs and administrative burdens for health plans and employers.
Section 2(a), inserting new Section 714A(b) into ERISA.
Key Definitions for Coverage Eligibility
This section provides detailed definitions for 'iatrogenic infertility' (fertility impairment due to damage from medical procedures like surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or myeloablative conditioning) and 'infertility' (inability to achieve pregnancy after 12 months, or after standard treatment, or based on medical history/testing, or due to specific diagnosed conditions). It also defines 'infertility or iatrogenic infertility treatment' to include both in-vitro procedures (e.g., IVF, egg/embryo cryopreservation) and non-in-vitro procedures (e.g., ovulation induction, genetic screening, sperm cryopreservation, IUI).
Section 2(a), inserting new Section 714A(d) into ERISA.
Parity in Cost-Sharing and Coverage Limits
This provision stipulates that any coverage provided for infertility or iatrogenic infertility treatments must be subject to coverage limits (such as medical necessity, pre-authorization, or pre-certification) and cost-sharing requirements (such as coinsurance, copayments, and deductibles) that are no more restrictive than those applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered under the same plan or coverage.
Section 2(a), inserting new Section 714A(e) into ERISA.
Protections Against Discriminatory Practices
This section prohibits group health plans and issuers from offering incentives (monetary or otherwise) to discourage participants from receiving fertility treatments to which they are entitled. It also forbids plans from preventing providers from discussing treatment options with patients or from penalizing providers for offering infertility or iatrogenic infertility treatment services in accordance with the Act.
Section 2(a), inserting new Section 714A(g) into ERISA.
Oversight of Utilization Management for Fertility Treatments
For the first five plan years after enactment, health plans must perform and document detailed analyses of their utilization management tools for fertility treatments. These analyses must demonstrate consistency with clinical guidelines and non-stringent application compared to other medical benefits, and be submitted annually to the Secretary. The Secretary can request further information, and if non-compliance is found, require corrective actions and public notification to enrollees. A public report to Congress summarizing findings is also mandated annually.
Section 2(b), amending Section 502 of ERISA.
Civil Penalties for Non-Compliance
This section amends ERISA to allow the Secretary to assess civil penalties against health insurance issuers for non-compliance. Penalties can be up to $100 per day for each participant or beneficiary denied required coverage, starting from the denial date until approval. Additionally, a penalty of up to $100 per day can be assessed for failing to submit required utilization management analyses, starting 45 days after notification of non-compliance and ending when the analysis is submitted.
Documents or communications produced in connection with the Secretary's recommendations to a group health plan or health insurance issuer regarding utilization management compliance shall not be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Section 714A(g)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to protect the deliberative process between regulators and regulated entities, encouraging open communication during compliance reviews without fear of public disclosure.
Case for: Supporters would argue this protects the integrity of the compliance review process, allowing the Secretary to provide candid feedback and plans to respond without public scrutiny of preliminary findings or advice. This fosters a more cooperative approach to achieving compliance.
Case against: Critics might argue that this exemption reduces transparency and public accountability regarding the enforcement process. They might contend that public access to such communications could help identify patterns of non-compliance or areas where regulatory guidance is unclear.
Estimated impact: Limits public access to specific communications between the Department of Labor and health plans regarding compliance with fertility coverage mandates, affecting public oversight.
The new requirements for fertility coverage and amendments to ERISA shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2027.
Section 714A(i)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for specifying implementation timelines, providing plans and agencies with lead time to adjust to new regulations.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a delayed effective date is practical and necessary, allowing health plans and issuers sufficient time to update their benefit designs, administrative systems, and provider networks to comply with the new mandates without disruption.
Case against: Advocates for immediate access to fertility treatments might argue that the delay postpones critical care for individuals currently struggling with infertility, prolonging their wait for coverage and potentially exacerbating their emotional and financial burdens.
Estimated impact: Delays the implementation of mandated fertility coverage by at least several months, depending on when the bill is enacted, ensuring a transition period for the industry.