Lisa Mahar, 36, and her partner were desperate to have a baby. They couldn’t conceive naturally but they also couldn’t afford $11,000 for the initial IVF treatment.
Running out of options, the pair approached SuperCare. A company that helps individuals access money from their superannuation for when “medical interventions are required”. They help people find funding for IVF, bariatric surgery, cosmetic procedures such as rhinoplasty and otoplasty, as well as body contouring after massive weight loss.
How is this allowed? SuperCare applies to the Department of Human Services, citing regulation 6.19A(1) of the 1994 Superannuation Industry Regulations. The guidelines state superannuation can be released early to treat a life-threatening illness or injury; alleviate acute or chronic pain; or alleviate acute or chronic mental disturbance.
Helping a woman fall pregnant falls under the mental health category. Mahar and her partner paid SuperCare $900 to retrieve $11,000 from Mahar’s super fund.
The couple’s story is not uncommon. Use IVF in Australia is increasing. There were 71,516 assisted reproductive treatments performed in Australia and New Zealand in 2013, which was a 14% increase from three years earlier. Today, close to one in 30 babies is conceived through IVF.
Their financial situation is not unique either. $11,000 can sound impossibly far away for many who are considering IVF. There are single women living on a sole income. Women who’ve tried and tried to conceive, who’ve spent their savings on previous unsuccessful IVF treatments. Couples who are desperate to have a baby, but who are also struggling with debt or have their money tied into assets or mortgages or life.
Top Comments
i don't mind how they pay for IVF as long as it isn't being funded by medicare or private health insurance, which means that people who can have babies naturally, or people who do not want babies, are funding the IVF.
it's not mandatory to have a baby, maybe not everyone who wants a baby needs to have one. life will go on if you don't have one.
if someone didn't want to lose out on retirement money, they could not use the money for IVF. i do not see this as a double punishment for women.
Our healthcare funds people who eat poorly, don't exercise and have diabetes. It's not mandatory to live with two legs. Life will go on without two legs but I am happy for my taxes to fund these people to keep diabetes from taking their legs. I will access healthcare funds for other reasons. We are a society. It's easy to have opinions related to other people's circumstances.
I read another article about this and it seems that the lady has well over $100,000 in her super account which is why they have accessed her account. I am sure that if her husband had more, he would have happily raided his account instead. Even if she takes a little time out from working - she may still have a couple decades left in the workforce to build up her super again. I am sure she does not feel that she is being "preyed upon" at all.
I wish them all the best in starting their family together.