Committee hears bill to add fertility‑preservation coverage to PERS plan; no vote taken

Representative Mike Brandenburg opened the House Human Services Committee hearing on House Bill 1284, which would add fertility‑preservation services such as sperm, egg and embryo cryopreservation to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) health plan pilot.

The bill would extend the existing PERS benefit so that people facing treatments — notably cancer therapies — could preserve reproductive material before care that risks fertility. "They're teenagers, 20 year olds, 30 year olds, and 40 year olds," said Tara Harding, a health care provider and witness in support. "They have weeks to decide if they are gonna spend their funds on cancer treatment and travel or fertility preservation."

Why it matters: Supporters said the measure addresses urgent, time‑sensitive medical decisions and emotional harms when people cannot preserve fertility before treatment. PERS staff described an estimated cost for a pilot program and said existing insurance reserves could underwrite coverage initially.

Key testimony and fiscal details Representative Mike Brandenburg described PERS insurance reserves and told the committee the plan currently holds a large balance. "We're sitting with the insurance trust balance ... of 60,000,000. Now you gotta take out 3,000,000 ... leaving somewhere around $55,200,000," he said, arguing the system could absorb the fiscal note.

Rebecca Fricke, executive director of the Public Employees Retirement System, said PERS is neutral on the policy choice but provided the committee Deloitte’s actuarial estimate for the pilot: "Deloitte has, estimated a financial impact specific to the PERS plan for this bill of a 0.04% increase or 345,000 for that pilot program during the upcoming biennium." Fricke also proposed an amendment to exclude the Medicare Part D plan from the pilot, noting federal rules likely preclude adding Part D benefits.

Derek Holbein, PERS chief operating and financial officer, described the system’s contractual gains and reserves and why the plan has cash on hand. "We are a fully insured product, which means we do not have any risk of loss. And if there is a gain, we get all of the gains back with the contract that we are entering into with Sanford for 25, 27," he said, explaining reserve accumulation comes from periods when premiums exceed claims and certain federal fee moratoriums.

Supporters and opponents Tara Harding and several community witnesses testified in support, saying fertility preservation is a medical necessity for some people facing cancer, sickle cell disease, lupus or other treatments that can cause permanent infertility. "Without insurance coverage, the cost of preserving eggs, sperm, or embryos can be prohibitive," said Abby Berger. The North Dakota Medical Association also expressed support through executive director Courtney Koval.

Andrea Fenwick, representing the Grand Forks‑area business group GNDC, opposed the bill’s private‑sector applicability in section 2 and asked the committee to consider the effect of adding mandated coverage to private employers.

Procedural outcome The committee took testimony and questions but did not hold a vote on House Bill 1284. Chairman Ruby closed the hearing at the end of the panel’s testimony.

What the record shows and next steps PERS staff supplied a Deloitte cost estimate and proposed a technical amendment excluding Medicare Part D from the pilot. Committee members asked technical questions about reserves, prior unfunded mandates that had been covered from reserves, and how adding coverage would affect premiums at renewal. No formal action or amendment vote is recorded in the transcript; the item was submitted for committee consideration.