Burcum: The fight for fertility coverage needs a governor in its corner

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

With November’s consequential elections looming, voters will get an earful this fall from candidates about how they intend to make the state a better place to raise a family.

Those promises ought to include Minnesotans still struggling to become parents. Because it’s hard to think of a more pro-family policy than helping those confronting infertility turn their dreams of having children into reality.

For four years, Miraya Gran, a Bloomington mom, and other advocates have asked state lawmakers to require health insurers to cover the medical care Minnesotans may need to have children. Twenty-five other states have fertility insurance laws covering treatment to some degree, according to RESOLVE, a national advocacy group.

Unfortunately, Minnesota has yet to join them. Gran told me that advocates have sought this change since 2022. But earlier this year, legislators again declined to take action despite bipartisan support and advocates’ attempt to find a path to passage by narrowing the ask to a limited number of insurance plans.

Years of inaction mean trying again in the 2027 session likely won’t be enough. What’s needed is a committed and energetic advocate in the governor’s mansion. Specifically, someone willing to make fertility coverage a priority, help negotiate the details and press lawmakers to pass meaningful reforms.

For that reason, fertility-coverage expansion ought to be a prominent issue in this fall’s governor’s race. And what incredible timing for this debate.

For the first time in Minnesota history, both major-party nominees for governor are women. And, both are mothers, an experience that may bring added perspective and motivation to the question of how to help Minnesotans who want to build a family.

So where do Lisa Demuth and Amy Klobuchar stand? I asked each candidate the same questions: Do you support requiring broader insurance coverage for fertility treatment and IVF in Minnesota? And, after repeated legislative failures, would you make passage of fertility coverage legislation a priority as governor and how would you get it across the finish line?

Demuth did not reply to my recent inquiry. She also was not among the 16 authors of the stand-alone Minnesota House fertility-coverage bill introduced in 2026.

Klobuchar provided this statement: “Minnesotans should have access to the health care, fertility treatment, and reproductive care they need — including IVF. I have supported legislation to expand access to IVF at the federal level and I’m committed to working with the Legislature to make it easier for Minnesotans to afford fertility treatments.”

Fertility-coverage advocates like Gran have been persistent despite the repeated setbacks at the Minnesota Capitol. They have winnowed the coverage requirements in hopes of getting something into law. The 2026 proposal, for example, initially called for infertility and fertility-preservation coverage in state-regulated health plans as well as Medical Assistance and MinnesotaCare.

But the provision that advanced as part of the Senate’s health and human services legislation was substantially narrower: It applied only to large-group health plans regulated by the state that provide maternity benefits to Minnesota residents.

Even then it didn’t become law.

Gran told me Thursday that advocates are not giving up. They intend to return to the Capitol next year and press lawmakers again. But after four years of hearings, negotiations, compromises and disappointment, they need a game-changer, such as a governor willing to help turn that effort into law.

Arguments against the bill sometimes included religious objections to in vitro fertilization, or IVF. It is “a type of assisted reproductive technology (ART) where sperm and an egg are fertilized outside of the human body,” according to the Cleveland Clinic. Resulting embryos are then transferred to a uterus or frozen for future use.

Cost is also a legitimate concern whenever lawmakers consider adding an insurance mandate. But a 2023 Minnesota Department of Commerce analysis of similar legislation estimated an average additional cost of $1.30 per health plan member per month in the first year, rising to $2.20 in the 10th year.

For Minnesotans who actually need fertility care, however, the financial stakes can be staggering. A single IVF cycle can cost $15,000 to $25,000, reports the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Sometimes multiple cycles may be required. Patients without coverage may turn to savings, retirement accounts, loans or even home equity to pay for it.

Nationally, 12% to 15% of couples confront infertility, a National Institutes of Health analysis concluded. Earlier this year I wrote about Minneapolis resident Rosie Nestingen. She and her husband were considering borrowing against their house to cover as much as $50,000 needed for this medical care.

The recently concluded Minnesota State Fair provided fodder for state office seekers. The Minnesota House conducts an informal poll at the fair. This year, one question involved fertility coverage, and there was strong support for requiring health plans to cover this care: 64.8% of respondents did so. Just 19.9% opposed it, with the remainder undecided or expressing no opinion.

This wasn’t a scientific survey, so don’t mistake 64.8% for the percentage of Minnesota voters who support a mandate. But with more than 9,000 fairgoers answering the question, the results suggest fertility coverage may have broader appeal than its repeated failures at the Capitol would indicate.

Helping people who desperately want to become parents afford the medical care necessary to do so is a meaningful investment in Minnesota’s future. This fall, voters deserve to know whether the two mothers running to lead Minnesota are willing to make it happen.

©2026 The Minnesota Star Tribune. Visit startribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC