Experts warn that former President Donald Trump's recent proposal to make in-vitro fertilization (IVF) free for all aspiring parents could impose an annual cost of up to $7 billion on taxpayers. While appealing to many, the proposal raises concerns about its financial implications and potential impact on the healthcare system, the New York Post reported.
Trump proposed making IVF free for everyone in the United States, a bold initiative that could shift the substantial costs of the procedure — estimated at up to $7 billion annually— onto the government and insurance companies. This sweeping plan has garnered both support and criticism, highlighting the financial and ethical complexities surrounding fertility treatments.
The proposal, unveiled Thursday, lacks detailed implementation strategies. However, experts suggest that the quickest path to enacting this policy might involve passing new legislation requiring insurance companies to treat infertility as a covered medical condition or amending the Affordable Care Act to include IVF coverage. Alternatively, Trump could use executive orders to extend free IVF services to federal workers, military personnel, and veterans, although such moves would likely face legal challenges.
Gerald Kominski, a senior fellow at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, remarked that the promise is unprecedented in U.S. healthcare. "What [Trump's] promising has never been done with regard to healthcare in this country," he said.
IVF is notoriously expensive, with the Department of Health and Human Services estimating the cost per treatment cycle to range from $15,000 to $20,000.
Vanessa Brown Calder, director of Opportunity and Family Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, estimated that providing free IVF to everyone could cost the government approximately $7 billion annually. This estimate is based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reported 413,776 assisted reproductive technology cycles in 2021, the vast majority of which were IVF treatments.
Calder also warned that these figures might underestimate the long-term costs because it remains unclear how much of this financial burden would be directly absorbed by the government versus passed on to taxpayers through higher insurance premiums.
Despite the financial concerns, IVF advocates have welcomed the proposal.
Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy officer for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), supported Trump's proposal. "It's terrific that a major party nominee is calling for universal access to IVF," he said.
"In order for our Social Security system to be fiscally viable, we need to have young employees paying taxes," Tipton added.
Trump's proposal has sparked a mixed reaction within the Republican Party. While some view it as a strong pro-family initiative, others, especially abortion opponents, express concern over IVF's involvement in the creation and destruction of embryos.
"We believe human embryos should not be destroyed. All too often, proposals on this issue go too far by giving blanket immunity to IVF clinics — even for rogue practitioners who switch human embryos, fail to follow basic safety standards, or negligently destroy human embryos desired by infertile couples," said Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser.