Post by account_disabled on Jan 23, 2024 7:35:36 GMT
Plan contract clause that excludes in vitro fertilization coverage is not abusive . iStockphotos According to the minister, the normative resolution of the National Supplementary Health Agency applicable to the specific case defines family planning as the “set of fertility regulation actions that guarantee the rights of constitution, limitation or increase of offspring by the woman, the man or the couple” . According to the standard, consumers are guaranteed access to methods and techniques for conception and contraception, monitoring by a qualified professional (gynecologists, obstetricians, urologists), clinical and laboratory examinations, urgent and emergency care, including the use of behavioral, medicinal or surgical resources, reversible and irreversible in reproductive matters.
“The limitation regarding artificial insemination only Buy Phone Number List represents an exception to the general rule of mandatory assistance in cases involving family planning, in the conception modality”, stated Nancy. In this specific case, the woman filed a lawsuit against the health plan to have access to assisted fertilization treatment after being unable to get pregnant, as she has endometriosis, a disease that makes pregnancy difficult. According to the process, she cannot be included in the Unified Health System's intrauterine insemination list because she is older than the age established as the maximum limit.
The action also alleges that in vitro fertilization on the public network has an average wait of four years, which would make her dream of becoming a mother unfeasible. The ruling upheld the request to determine that the plan pays for treatment in up to eight attempts. The Federal District Court of Justice, upon ruling on the plan's appeal, dismissed the appeal. In the special appeal, the plan argues that the legislator's intention was not to include in the concept of family planning the cost of any type of artificial insemination, expressly excluded by article 10, III, of the Health Plans Law and by resolutions 192/2009 and 338/2013 of the ANS.
“The limitation regarding artificial insemination only Buy Phone Number List represents an exception to the general rule of mandatory assistance in cases involving family planning, in the conception modality”, stated Nancy. In this specific case, the woman filed a lawsuit against the health plan to have access to assisted fertilization treatment after being unable to get pregnant, as she has endometriosis, a disease that makes pregnancy difficult. According to the process, she cannot be included in the Unified Health System's intrauterine insemination list because she is older than the age established as the maximum limit.
The action also alleges that in vitro fertilization on the public network has an average wait of four years, which would make her dream of becoming a mother unfeasible. The ruling upheld the request to determine that the plan pays for treatment in up to eight attempts. The Federal District Court of Justice, upon ruling on the plan's appeal, dismissed the appeal. In the special appeal, the plan argues that the legislator's intention was not to include in the concept of family planning the cost of any type of artificial insemination, expressly excluded by article 10, III, of the Health Plans Law and by resolutions 192/2009 and 338/2013 of the ANS.