Many of the state’s many-relatives are set to delay the new law of California MPs, which are included in in vitro fertilization insurance coverage for millions of people to be effective on 1 July. Gov. Gavin Newsom has asked MPs to push the date of implementation in January 2026, leaving patients, insurers and employers in Limbo.
Law, SB 729, requires state-regulated health plans offered by large employers to cover infertility diagnosis and treatment including IVF. Nine million people will qualify for coverage under the law. Advocates have praised the law as “a major win for the people of California”, especially in creating uniform-lingo couples and making single parents eligible, although cost concerns limited the width of the mandate.
Those who were planning breeding care on the basis of the original timeline are now “left in a holding pattern, facing more uncertainty, financial stress and emotional crisis,” Elis Powell, Resolution: A director of the National Infertility Association, said in a statement.
During IVF, a patient’s egg is recovered, combined with sperm in a laboratory, and then transferred to a person’s uterus. A single cycle can be out of access to $ 25,000 total, several. In the California law, insurers need to cover three eggs and cover fetal transfer in unlimited number.
Not everyone’s coverage will be affected by late. Even if the law came into effect on 1 July, it would not require IVF coverage, until an employer’s contract is renewed with its insurer. Rachel Arezola, a spokesperson of the California Department of Management Health Care, said that most employers renew their contracts in January under the law, so their employees will not be affected by the delay.
He refused to provide data on the percentage of eligible contracts that renewed in or later in July, which means that those Enroll will not get IVF coverage for at least one whole year in July 2026 or later.
The proposed new implementation date comes amid national attention on reproductive coverage. California is now one of the 15 states with the IVF mandate, and in February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order demanding policy recommendations to expand the IVF access.
This is the second time Newsom has asked MPs to delay the law. When the Democratic Governor signed the bill in September, he asked the Legislature to consider delaying the implementation for six months. The reason for this, Newsom then said, “The state regulators were allowed to include the difference between the bill and wide effort to include IVF and other reproduction services as an essential health benefit, which would require market and other individual and small-groups to provide coverage.
Newsom spokesman Alan Ross said that the state needs more time to provide guidance to insurers on specific services not addressed in law to ensure sufficient and uniform coverage. Arrezola said that fetal storage and donor eggs and sperm were examples of services required for more guidance.
State Sen Caroline Menzivar, a Democrat, who wrote to the original IVF mandate, admitted that a delay disappointed people to expand their families, but requested patience “We could roll it properly for a while.”
Scene Tipton, a prosecutor from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said some of the remaining questions on the mandate did not delay long.
Prior to the end of June, the lawmakers are ready to carry forward a delay in one vote by both houses of the Legislature. If a delay is approved and signed by the Governor, the law will be stopped immediately. If this does not happen before July 1, Arrezola said, the managed health care department will implement the mandate as it exists. By March, the agency needed all plans to submit compliance filing. Arrezola was unable to explain what would happen to IVF patients, whose coverage had already started if the delay passes after 1 July.
The California Association of Health Plan, which opposed the mandate, refused to comment on where the implementation efforts are standing, although the group agrees that insurers need more guidance, spokesperson Mary Ellen Grant said.
Company spokesman Kathleen Chambers said that the state’s largest insurer Kaiser Permanent has already provided information about new benefits to the employers to the employers. He said that the eligible members whose plan is renewed on or after July 1, if the implementation of the law is not delayed then IVF coverage will be there.
Employers and some reproductive care providers appear to be struggling with the uncertainty of the beginning date of the law. Amy Donovan, a lawyer of the Insurance Brokerage and Consulting firm Keenn and Associates, said the firm has raised several questions about the possibility of delays from employers. Breeding Center and Shady Grove Fertility, major clinics serving various fields of California, posted on their websites that the IVF mandate was delayed by January 2026, which is not yet the case. He did not respond to the remarks requests.
Some infertility patients confused what and when to be covered, gone out of patience. Ana Rios and his wife, who lived in the Central Valley, were trying to keep a child for six years, taking a dip in savings for each unsuccessful treatment. Although she was “thrilled” to know about the new law, Rios could not get clarity from her employer or health plan whether she was eligible for coverage and when it would, she said. The couple decided to go to Mexico to pursue cheap treatment options.
“You think you finally have a helping hand,” Rios said about learning about the law and then, later, requested delays. “You reach out, and they take it back.”
The article was produced by KFF Health News, publishing the California Healthline, which is an editorial service of the California Health Care Foundation.
