Minnesota committee lays over bill to require infertility diagnosis and treatment coverage

Representative Sarah Kotyza-Witthuhn introduced House File 17‑58 on April 9, describing the Minnesota Building Families Act as “a simple bill with a huge impact” that would require insurance companies to cover infertility diagnosis and treatments. She said the bill does not change how surrogacy is regulated and that the purpose is to ensure Minnesotans can access medically recommended care when cost is the barrier.

The bill sponsor and committee adopted two amendments at the start of the hearing: an A2 amendment to update drafting dates and an A4 amendment that adds a religious‑freedom exemption aligned with companion language the Senate included. Kotyza‑Witthuhn told members she is open to further changes, including limits on the number of egg retrievals covered.

Patients, clinicians and employers spoke in favor of the bill. Mariah Graham, identifying herself as a patient advocate, described out‑of‑pocket costs and asked lawmakers, “If you are a parent or hope to be, how much of your financial future would you risk for your child?” She and other supporters said mandates in other states have not driven up premiums materially and argued coverage supports evidence‑based care and reduces high‑risk multiple gestations.

Dr. April Bachelor, a reproductive endocrinologist, told the committee infertility “is not rare and it is not elective. It affects one in 6 individuals,” and said lack of coverage forces patients toward less effective or higher‑risk treatments. She said insurance coverage enables clinicians to follow evidence‑based protocols that prioritize health.

Opponents raised ethical and fiscal concerns. Rebecca Delahunt, of the Minnesota Family Council, urged the committee to consider whether the bill’s language could be interpreted to require coverage for surrogacy or third‑party arrangements in the future. Representatives of the Minnesota Catholic Conference and several fertility‑care clinicians urged investment in diagnosis and ‘restorative reproductive medicine’ as alternatives to mandating IVF coverage.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on fiscal estimates and how costs would be borne across markets. A representative of health plans explained that some markets (individual and small group) could generate state fiscal costs under federal rules and that prior estimates (cited from a 2023 analysis) put potential state costs near $18 million annually, though speakers noted estimates vary and Minnesota‑specific data are limited.

Kotyza‑Witthuhn said the bill, as drafted, includes a limit on completed egg retrievals and that she would consider further amendments such as limiting coverage to large‑group plans or collecting Minnesota‑specific data before expansion. After extended member discussion on costs, scope and policy tradeoffs, the sponsor laid HF1758 over for possible inclusion and further work.

The committee did not vote to advance the bill toward final passage; the file was laid over for future committee consideration.