I've known of situations where employers have leveraged improved coverage with actual premium reductions simply by telling the insurance company to come up with a better deal or the employer would cancel the contract and use a different insurance company. This is all premised on the employee's comfort in disclosing their infertility to their employer. With the insurance company, the relationship is, frankly, adversarial . The approach is to verify level of coverage by requesting a copy of the bona fide insurance contract, a document that clearly states the level of coverage and is binding in court. Then the contract should be reviewed to see if the contract language allows for any better coverage.
Insurance companies are unwilling to listen to an argument based on the actual cost for coverage.
They already know you are infertile based on your medical records, and they know that any extension of benefits will cost money. The issue is whether or not the materials are a binding document that will stand up in court. The benefits summaries often state that they are not binding and if this is the case the employee should press for a copy of the contract, which they have every entitlement to see based on federal law. Here is a good example of why the benefits summaries can be useful but are not binding in court. This brochure is based on text included in the contract between OPM and this Plan and is intended to be a complete statement of benefits available to FEHB members.