Committee tables bill to require insurance coverage for fertility preservation

A House committee on Tuesday tabled House Bill 95, a proposal to require fertility preservation services to be covered under the Health Care Purchasing Act and the New Mexico Insurance Code.

The measure, sponsored in committee by Representative Herringdon, would have added new sections to state law obligating insurers to cover fertility preservation for enrollees when a treating health care provider determines that a medically necessary treatment may cause infertility. The bill’s proposed effective date was Jan. 1, 2026.

Supporters said the change would protect people who face fertility‑damaging treatments — for example, chemotherapy or radiation — and give them an opportunity to preserve reproductive tissue or gametes before treatment begins. “Future fertility is an expectation,” retired family physician Dr. Sandra Penn told the committee. “Preventing harm to gonadal tissue is possible; it should always be part of treatment.”

National and local patient‑advocacy groups joined testimony in support. Christina (Katrina) Kimball of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society said cancer treatment often must begin quickly and that out‑of‑pocket fertility‑preservation costs can be prohibitive. Joyce Reineke, executive director of the Alliance for Fertility Preservation, cited American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance that recognizes fertility preservation as part of standard cancer care and said 18 states plus the District of Columbia have passed laws expanding coverage.

Witnesses offered a fiscal estimate of potential program size. Reineke summarized an estimate presented to the committee that about 120 men and 85 women annually in New Mexico might use preservation services; using retail service prices that estimate produced a total cost of about $600,000 per year. Reineke emphasized that negotiated insurance or Medicaid reimbursement rates would likely be lower than retail figures.

Opponents or skeptical lawmakers pressed on coverage sources and budget impact. Representative Armstrong asked whether Medicaid currently pays for fertility preservation; witnesses and the sponsor said it does not. Committee members also cited the Office of Superintendent of Insurance analysis that fertility services are not part of New Mexico’s Affordable Care Act benchmark package and raised questions about premium impacts in individual, small‑group and large‑group markets. The New Mexico Public Schools insurance program warned of higher long‑term expenditures because of procedure and storage fees.

Sponsor and witnesses repeatedly said the number of patients who would use the benefit is small and that spreading the cost across insured populations would keep per‑member premium changes minimal; one witness cited an estimated per‑member, per‑month increase in other states often under ten cents.

After questions and extended discussion about definitions of “medically necessary” and whether costs were already budgeted in agency forecasts, a motion to table the bill carried. The committee clerk recorded a vote of 6 in favor of tabling and 4 opposed.

Discussion vs. action: committee debate focused on budget uncertainty, Medicaid implementation and who would determine medical necessity (treating provider). The formal outcome was a motion to table HB95, which passed; no substantive coverage change was enacted by the committee.

What's next: The tabling vote leaves the bill without committee approval; sponsors and advocates signaled a desire to refine cost estimates and seek further conversations with health‑system and insurance stakeholders before returning the measure.

Votes at a glance: Motion to table HB95 (motion text: “Motion to table HB95 as amended”) — final committee action: tabled; tally 6 yes, 4 no.