The Problems with Employer-Funded Elective Egg Freezing
By Kathleen (Katie) Hammond
We have seen a growing trend in recent years of companies covering some, or all, of the cost of elective (i.e., non-medical) egg freezing as an employee benefit. For instance, Meta, Google, Netflix, Uber, and Apple are among the list of companies that offer some coverage for elective egg freezing.
In this piece, I explore four concerns with employer-funded elective egg freezing. While there are many upsides, employers should be mindful of how funding egg freezing may impact workplace culture. They should be careful about how information about the procedure is disseminated, and they need to be careful not to discriminate in regards to who can access it. Additionally, employer-funded elective egg freezing is not a replacement for other institutional benefits that foster workplace equality and parenthood-work balance such as paid parental leave, flexible work schedules, and funding for childcare.
Coverage of elective egg freezing — a fertility preservation method — by employers can be a benefit for employees. Since fertility for people with ovaries, largely women, declines as eggs age, egg freezing allows people to freeze their eggs when they are young so that they can use them at a later age to increase their chances of pregnancy. It is advertised to women as a way to “have it all,” offering them some control over when they will have children and providing options for those who want to delay childbearing for various reasons, such as wanting to focus on their career or find a partner.
Employer-funded egg freezing potentially makes the technology more accessible to those who might not otherwise be able to afford it. It allows people who would otherwise seek out the technology but first have to save the money to pay for it the possibility to freeze their eggs at a younger age. Since it is paid for by the employer (and not the person freezing their eggs) it also potentially assuages concerns about the fertility industry exploiting people into paying large sums of money.
It is also unlikely that companies would offer this benefit unless it was beneficial to them. Among other possible benefits for an employer, it can improve employee retention, encourage employees to work, rather than have kids during their most productive years, help a company avoid the immediate costs of parental leave, boost gender diversity, and can benefit a company’s public image.
There are, however, critical concerns arising from elective egg freezing. There are physical risks associated with the stimulation and retrieval of eggs, and, further, people who freeze their eggs must subsequently undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF) to use them later, which may carry increased risks of medical complications in pregnancy if individuals are of advanced maternal age. There are also no guarantees that egg freezing will work and there is insufficient data to accurately estimate individual success rates. In addition to these general concerns about the process, there are also concerns specifically related to the technology being funded by employers.
First, as noted above, employer-funded elective egg freezing may provide options for people who are not ready to have children for a variety of reasons. However, particularly if other benefits that enable parenthood-work balance are not in place, it may create a narrative that parenthood and work early in one’s career are incompatible. This might create a stigma for employees who choose to have children earlier and create pressure for employees to freeze their eggs to demonstrate their commitment to their job. An employee who freezes their eggs might also feel indebted to the company and/or as though they should not get pregnant for a certain amount of time afterwards.
Second, when an employee takes advantage of funded elective egg freezing but their employer does not offer other benefits that enable parenthood-work balance, this simply postpones but does not solve the eventual challenges of balancing parenthood and work. Additionally, by offering funded elective egg freezing, an employer may feel as though they have already put in place a solution to assist with parenthood-work balance and equality in the workplace. As such, they may be de-incentivized from offering long-term solutions to these problems.
Finally, there are several potential concerns associated with how funded elective egg freezing may be offered by employers. In addition to the concern outlined above, about feelings of indebtedness, an employee may actually become indebted to a company that funds egg freezing if an agreement stipulates that an employee has to reimburse their employer if they leave too soon after freezing their eggs. Moreover, if information or counselling about the process is offered by an employer-sponsored provider this could create a conflict of interest. There may be issues with the type of information that is provided to an employee, such as egg freezing being described as “insurance” without more information being provided about success rates. Costs that are associated with egg freezing and using one’s frozen eggs, such as storage fees, insurance, and IVF, may not be covered by an employer and an employee may be unaware of the fact that these costs are not covered before freezing their eggs. Lastly, employers may draw problematic delineations with regards to who can/cannot have coverage. For instance, it may only be provided to cisgender women, people who have not yet frozen their eggs, people who have not already had kids, etc.
There are many positives associated with companies funding elective egg freezing — one of them being that discussion about funding this technology hopefully is drawing attention to gender inequality in the workplace and problems with employee work-life balance. However, it is important to recognize the possible negative impacts of this technology being funded by employers so that they can be addressed. It is crucial to remember that funding elective egg freezing is not a long-term solution to workplace inequality and work-life balance problems. Funding for this technology should be offered in conjunction with other initiatives directed towards these issues.
Katie Hammond is an Assistant Professor at the Lincoln Alexander School of Law at Toronto Metropolitan University and a former visiting scholar of the Petrie-Flom Center.
