From recruiting and retention to company culture and the latest in HR tech, HR Brew delivers up-to-date industry news and tips to help HR pros stay nimble in today’s fast-changing business environment.

HR Brew

Courtney Vinopal

hr-brew.com

Graphic on attitudes on the future of fertility benefits

Graph showing attitudes about employer fertility benefits.

Graph showing the share of surveyed employees who receive fertility benefits.

Democrats hold a press conference on IVF.

Firms likely to expand fertility benefits after Alabama IVF ruling

While fertility treatments remain a rare employer benefit, 63% of US respondents say companies should offer them, according to a HR Brew/Harris Poll survey.

Most HR pros say companies are likely to expand, not reduce, fertility benefits

An office manager sitting at a desk in front of two computers with money floating around her

Tech is changing the game for compensation managers

An explosion of data coupled with advancements in tech means auditing compensation is now a year-round endeavor for HR. 

Heart shaped sticky note labeled "out of office" on a calendar

Why Crunchbase gives employees time off to volunteer 

Crunchbase, a private company data provider, has been offering “volunteering time off” (VTO) to its employees since 2018.

A present icon denoting total rewards and compensation

Total Rewards (Comp & Benefits)

An illustration of reporter Courtney Vinopal's headshot.

A recent push to diversify the types of investments included in employer-sponsored retirement plans is prompting some employers to consider whether to invest in new solutions for their workers.

The 401(k) is the most common type of retirement plan available to US workers today, and it typically includes a mix of stocks and bonds. One common way to allocate these investments is in a “60/40” portfolio, with 60% of investments made in public stocks and the other 40% going toward bonds.

But the strength of the 60/40 portfolio is being challenged today, with some financial experts arguing that retirement plan participants would see better returns from a more diversified portfolio that includes different types of assets—including alternative investments that are considered riskier, like private equity.

Though employers have typically steered away from incorporating private equity into their 401(k) plans over fears of being sued, a 

 from the Trump administration seeks to change that. As federal agencies prepare guidance on how plan sponsors can offer these investment options to their workers, employers can expect to be pitched on new solutions that incorporate both public and private assets.

How the market is evolving in favor of public-private retirement solutions. 

Just 11% of retirement plans offered an alternative asset class as of 2024, according to a survey from the Plan Sponsor Council of America.

Historically the structure of defined-contribution plans such as 401(k)s hasn’t lent well to alternative assets such as private equity, experts told HR Brew. Private equity funds tend to have less liquidity and higher fees than public-market investments. They also don’t typically have daily valuations, a common feature of 401(k) funds.

“The structure of private assets and largely alternative assets as well…don’t operationally fit within the defined-contribution ecosystem,” said Holly Verdeyen, defined-contribution business leader with the consulting firm Mercer.

Employers that have experimented with incorporating alternative assets into their 401(k) plans have gotten into legal trouble in the past over issues like high fees and underperformance. But investment firms are now developing solutions that address some of these issues, with the expectation that federal agencies will soon provide guidance for employers who want to safely offer such solutions. Many of these newer products are target-date funds (TDFs) that incorporate both public and private assets, with cash flows that “are highly predictable,” said David O’Meara, head of defined-contribution strategy with consulting firm WTW.

Salespeople with the investment firms developing these products are now “knocking on doors and picking up phones and contacting plan sponsors” in the hopes they’ll add them to their 401(k) plans, O’Meara said. “How seriously they take any of these investments…will largely stem from the guidance that comes out of the Department of Labor,” he continued. Retirement plan fiduciaries will want to see guidance on how to evaluate these solutions, as well as legal protections associated with them, he predicted.

Goldman Sachs and BlackRock are among the firms eager to profit from inclusion in defined-contribution plans, which hold more than $12 trillion in assets.

“Private markets are not a silver bullet, but if you integrate them into a target date fund, they can meaningfully improve retirement outcomes,” Nick Nefouse, global head of retirement solutions with BlackRock, told HR Brew. BlackRock announced it was working on 

Nefouse recommended HR leaders get educated on new products coming to the market, but said he expected uptake to be gradual. “In terms of the aggregate market, I will tell you it is going to be a longer decision, and that is consistent….with everything you see with HR teams.” Adoption of 401(k) investment options incorporating private equity, he suggested, might be akin to health savings accounts, which took time to gain traction, but are now quite popular.

The firms that are developing these products are, naturally, bullish on their potential to boost returns for 401(k) participants. BlackRock believes integrating private markets into target date solutions could enhance participants’ retirement savings 

 that allocating 12% of a traditional 60/40 retirement portfolio to private assets “can lead to meaningful long-term wealth accumulation without significantly increasing overall risk.”

Over the last 20–30 years, returns from private equity buyout returns have exceeded public market returns “significantly,” said Burcu Esmer, academic co-director of the Harris Family Alternative Investments Program at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. Private equity returns have softened over the last couple of years, though, she said. She noted that older investors could potentially bear more risk from incorporating alternatives into their portfolios, given they don’t have as many years to realize positive returns.

The potential to help employees improve their savings at a time when many worry they’re not putting away enough to retire may certainly be appealing for employers, but HR leaders should proceed with caution, experts told us. While the Trump administration has given the green light to encourage private equity in defined-contribution plans, fiduciaries’ obligations under ERISA when considering such investments haven’t changed.

HR leaders who are exploring these solutions seriously have likely worked with alternative assets before, sources said. Mercer is seeing heavy interest from financial services companies, as well as “very large, sophisticated corporate sponsors” that have an in-house investment staff and already include alternatives in defined-benefit plans, where private equity has a stronger presence, said Verdeyen.

Trump’s 401(k) executive order opens door for private markets

 Investment firms like BlackRock and Goldman Sachs are hoping to gain a foothold in the defined-contribution space, which holds more than $12 trillion in assets.

What HR leaders should know about 401(k) solutions incorporating private assets 

Concerns about the rising cost of healthcare seem to be everywhere these days, from the corridors of Capitol Hill to CEOs’ corner offices.

 is affecting their workforces and overall benefits strategy. Recent surveys show employers expect health costs to rise by 

 next year, with many respondents pointing to GLP-1 drugs for weight loss as a top culprit. These medications carry a high list price—around $1,000 a month—but hold promise for effectively treating conditions ranging from obesity to heart disease.

A recent poll conducted among clients of the consulting firm Mercer shows organizations are holding off on plans to cover GLP-1s for weight loss in the future, if they aren’t already doing so.

Mercer surveyed around 200 clients who attended a Nov. 13 webinar on regulatory and policy updates for US employers and employees. In response to a question directed to respondents whose organizations don’t already cover GLP-1 medications for weight loss, 70% said they weren’t considering adding coverage, or a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), in the future. Employers sometimes offer HRAs to help workers purchase drugs through the direct-to-consumer market.

Nearly twenty-one percent of respondents said they were considering adding GLP-1 coverage to their medical or Rx plan in the next few years, while 5.5% said they planned to do so in 2026.

The results suggest employers are sitting tight on adding GLP-1 coverage for weight loss to their medical plans, even as the Trump administration seeks to lower the cost of the drugs for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as Americans without insurance.

It’s not yet clear whether workers on employer-sponsored health insurance will benefit from 

 with two GLP-1 manufacturers to offer their drugs at lower prices. Employers’ hesitancy to cover GLP-1s “primarily comes down to cost,” said Katharine Marshall, a principal with Mercer’s law and policy group.

“I would like to think that the agreements made with the White House...would put some pressure on those pharmaceutical companies to provide similar pricing for commercial plans, but I think we’re going to have to wait and see,” she said.

GLP-1s were first approved to treat diabetes in 2005, and most employers cover them for this reason. Weight loss is a more recent indication, and coverage varies by employer size, surveys suggest. Nineteen percent of firms with 200 or more employees cover GLP-1s for weight loss in their largest health plan, according to KFF’s most recent 

, but coverage is more prevalent among firms with 5,000 or more workers (43%).

Semaglutide injection pen or cartridge pen for diabetics and weight loss in female hand. Medical equipment for diabetes patients

HR leaders hesitant to add GLP-1 coverage even after TrumpRx deal

Organizations are holding off on plans to cover GLP-1s for weight loss in the future, if they aren’t already doing so.

Some employers hold off on expanding GLP-1 coverage, for now

When Congress passed the Social Security Act in 1935, a widely distributed poster touted the forthcoming benefits for workers who paid into the system.

“A monthly check to you,” the poster read in cursive script, pictured above an illustration of the US Capitol and a monthly check from the government. The poster promised these checks “for the rest of your life…begining when you are 65.”

Ninety years later, it’s not at all certain that eligible workers can count on receiving these checks for the rest of their lives. The trust fund that administers these benefits is expected to 

 as early as 2034, at which point the Social Security Administration would only be able to pay out 77% of scheduled benefits unless Congress acts.

At the same time, the landscape for employer-sponsored retirement benefits has also grown shakier. Whereas most workers used to have access to a pension that guaranteed income in retirement, the predominant savings vehicle for US employees is now a 401(k)—a plan that’s generally viewed as less secure given its strength depends in part on employee contributions, and is subject to the whims of the stock market.

Nevertheless, HR teams and policymakers are exploring ways to make employer-sponsored retirement benefits stronger. One potential solution could soon bring a windfall to the private equity industry.

Between 1989 and 2022, defined-contribution plans surpassed defined-benefit plans as the primary form of employer-sponsored retirement benefits. Whereas about 60% of US workers 

 in some type of defined-benefit plan, such as a pension, as of 1989, that number had dropped to about 20% as of 2022.

Meanwhile, about 80% of workers were enrolled in defined-contribution plans like 401(k)s as of 2022, up from just 55% in 1989.

Part of the reason employers moved away from defined-benefit plans was because they no longer wanted to be on the hook for funding workers’ retirement income themselves, said Ron Ulrich, VP of product consulting and compliance with ADP Retirement Services. Under pension plans, employer contributions can vary from one year to the next depending on how the stock market performs, “so it’s very unpredictable,” he said.

This new benefits landscape puts the onus on workers to save for retirement themselves, rather than rely on their employer to do it for them, experts told HR Brew.

The rise of defined-contribution plans has “shifted all of the decision making essentially onto workers to figure out whether to save, how much to save, how to invest those savings, and how to turn that into income when they retire,” said Angela Antonelli, executive director and founder of the Center for Retirement Initiatives at Georgetown’s McCourt School of Public Policy.

Ted Benna, a consultant who developed the first 401(k) savings plan in 1981 by taking advantage of an easy-to-miss provision in the tax code, told HR Brew he believes pensions would’ve gone by the wayside regardless of whether his invention became popular. Benna, who started as a defined-benefit consultant, said employers became wary of offering such plans after the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was enacted in 1974 with specific protections for pension enrollees. Pensions also make less sense for modern-day workers, Benna said. They work for people who have stayed with one company for a long time, but less so for today’s transient workforce.

But Benna, who has also said he didn’t intend for 401(k)s to become the dominant retirement benefit, concedes that there are weaknesses in this type of plan.

While 401(k)s tend to work well for some middle and higher income earners, lower-income workers “cannot afford to have money taken out of their paycheck,” Benna said.

That’s assuming these workers are offered a 401(k) plan at all. While this benefit is popular in the private sector, it isn’t ubiquitous, especially in industries that employ hourly and low-income workers. Some 79% of full-time workers in the lowest-earning tenth of the population lacked access to a retirement plan as of 2024, according to 

As a result, insecurities about retirement pervade the American workforce. Upwards of 40% of US workers aren’t saving enough to comfortably retire, according to 

 by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. In another recent Goldman Sachs 

, 58% of respondents said they believed they’ll outlive their savings.

The 401(k) may not be perfect, but employers are exploring ways to make it more accessible and effective.

Some have done so by taking advantage of provisions included in the 

, which was enacted in 2022 with the goal of encouraging “more employers to offer retirement plan benefits to their workers” and making it “easier for Americans to save,” according to a 

 issued by the Biden administration at the time.

One SECURE 2.0 provision allows employers to match 401(k) contributions based on an employee’s student loan payments. The benefit 

 by healthcare company Abbott Laboratories in 2018 after employees expressed concerns about being able to save for retirement while also managing student loan debt.

“We heard from our employees that they would love to take advantage of our match, but they couldn't, because they felt the stress of needing to pay down their student loan debt,” said Mary Moreland, Abbott’s head of HR.

Abbott has contributed $10 million to employees’ retirement savings since it launched the program in 2018, according to figures shared by the company. As of Q2 2025, 3,834 had enrolled in the student loan match program.

Another promising feature of SECURE 2.0 is auto-enroll, which requires most employers offering 401(k)s to enroll their workers in them automatically, while giving them the option to opt-out. The auto-enroll provision took effect this January but some employers were already onto the idea by that point.

Workers who are auto-enrolled in 401(k) plans tend to have higher participation than those who aren’t, research shows. Of the 5 million participants enrolled in Vanguard retirement plans in 2023, for instance, 94% who were automatically enrolled 

, while 67% who were offered a voluntary plan participated.

The life science software company MasterControl has automatically enrolled employees in its 401(k) plan for at least five years, according to chief people and culture officer Alicia Garcia. This feature has “greatly increased the health of the plan,” which has more than 90% participation, Garcia said. “Auto-enrollment definitely helps with that participation,” she said.

Other SECURE 2.0 provisions—like those that encourage the adoption of emergency savings accounts and allow workers to make emergency withdrawals from 401(k) plans—aim to help the low- and middle-income workers Benna referenced, who may not feel financially secure enough to contribute to retirement. Though uptake data for these policies is limited, it appears they 

 widespread in retirement plans as of 2024.

If policies like SECURE 2.0 were designed to help more workers access employer-sponsored retirement plans, and feel comfortable contributing to them, more recent executive actions have been geared toward diversifying the assets within these plans.

, issued by President Donald Trump on Aug. 7, seeks to expand access to alternative assets for Americans enrolled in 401(k) plans.

Historically, plan sponsors have been hesitant to incorporate investments like private equity in their 401(k) programs due to concerns about volatility, higher fees, and a lack of liquidity. Intel and Lockheed Martin are among the employers that have been sued for adding alternatives to their 401(k) plans. If the president’s order results in regulations that reduce the risk of litigation, though, that calculation could change.

 to tap into the defined contribution market, which holds more than $12 trillion in assets, should the White House provide a pathway. Firms like BlackRock, Blue Owl Capital, and Partners Group are already developing 401(k) solutions that incorporate public and private markets, while retirement providers Empower and Vanguard have already announced they plan to offer such solutions to their customers.

Proponents of alternative assets argue they have the potential to deliver higher returns for plan participants, and in turn help alleviate concerns about saving enough for retirement. BlackRock believes integrating private markets into target date solutions—one common type of 401(k) investment product—could enhance participants’ retirement savings 

“HR leaders should see this as an opportunity, because it enhances the values of their retirement plans,” said Nick Nefouse, global head of retirement solutions with BlackRock. Though Nefouse cautioned that private markets aren’t a “silver bullet,” he noted that other types of retirement plans—notably pensions—have long incorporated these assets into their portfolios.

Whether employees want private assets in their 401(k)s is a different matter. Abbott’s Moreland, for one, said the company has received very few questions thus far from employees about the trend.

And even if the promises of private equity’s proponents deliver, such a shift would still only solve part of the issue facing workers trying to plan for retirement today. Investment returns are one factor driving “retirement readiness,” but “the biggest lever is contribution,” said Holly Verdeyen, defined contribution business leader with the consulting firm Mercer.

Americans may have been able to count on a monthly retirement check from the government back in 1935, but today that responsibility has shifted more heavily onto workers and the companies that employ them. However the US retirement landscape shakes out in the future, benefits leaders will continue to play a strong role in shaping it.

A senior woman using laptop at her home desk next to a stack of papers.

HR rethinks retirement in the 401(k) era.

Americans can no longer depend on the government—or an employer—to fund their retirement. Policymakers are exploring ways to make the current system stronger.

Social Security is running out. Can stronger 401(k)s fill the gap?

The White House recently announced a deal with two pharmaceutical manufacturers to lower the price of GLP-1 drugs for weight loss.

Two manufacturers, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, agreed to lower the prices of their drugs from upwards of $1,000 a month to around $350 a month when purchased through TrumpRx, the 

 on Nov. 6. In exchange, the Trump administration said it will allow Medicare to cover the drugs for some patients. This government-funded health plan hasn't previously covered GLP-1s for weight loss. 

While the agreements won’t directly affect most employer-sponsored health plans, they could have secondary effects for companies that are covering the pricey drugs.

Doctors have been prescribing GLP-1s to treat type 2 diabetes for two decades, but the drugs were approved for weight loss in 2014. Clinical studies suggest GLP-1s are effective not only at helping patients lose weight, but also at reducing the risk of other conditions, such as cardiovascular and kidney disease.

 GLP-1s for obesity, even as the drugs are driving up health costs.

“The patient population is enormous, fueled by 

 word of mouth, social media,” said Louis Zollo, national pharmacy practice leader and VP at Segal, a benefits consulting firm. “Folks are going to the doctor asking for these drugs by name, which is not something we normally expect to see.”

The White House deal is intended to lower list prices of three popular GLP-1 drugs—Ozempic, Wegovy, and Zepbound. It could eventually spur negotiations to bring down prices on the employer-sponsored insurance side, Zollo said.

Drug companies, health payers, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) might negotiate with one another and “decide that they’re going to match that same direct-to-consumer price and forego, say, a rebate,” Zollo said, referring to referring to the kickbacks PBMs typically receive for negotiating with pharmaceutical companies.

Still, “right now, we’re not getting any signals that that is going to happen anytime soon,” according to Zollo.

Health economists and policy experts similarly 

 they expect this deal to eventually lower GLP-1 prices overall. “We would expect commercial payers to demand to use these posted prices as ceiling prices,” Rena Conti, a health economist and associate professor at Boston University, told the outlet. 

As employers wait to see whether the Trump administration’s recent efforts have any effect on their health spending, they’re exploring other strategies to contain costs tied to GLP-1s, Zollo said.

In addition to monitoring prior authorization criteria, benefits leaders are also starting to look into point solutions to support employees who are trying to lose weight, “realizing that weight loss is complex and maybe not just a drug-only solution for everybody,” he said. A major challenge with GLP-1s 

, and patients may benefit from other services, such as nutrition guidance or health coaching, if they want to maintain weight loss.

Omada Health, a virtual care program, recently launched a GLP-1 prescribing option with these challenges in mind. Omada plans to offer its “lifestyle modification program” alongside clinical expertise about the drugs themselves with the goal of creating “sustainable and lasting results,” Chief Medical Officer Thomas Tsang told HR Brew. When patients stop their GLP-1 and regain the weight they’ve lost, “that’s a huge loss to the investments that they’ve made,” he said.

President Trump sits at a desk beside a sign that details prices for GLP-1 drugs.

What Trump’s GLP-1 deal means for workplace coverage

While agreements to lower the prices of GLP-1s won’t immediately affect employer-sponsored health plans, they could eventually bring down costs.

Ozempic and Wegovy are about to get cheaper. Will employer-sponsored plans benefit?

Having a baby in the US is significantly riskier than in other comparable countries. As of 2022 the US had 

 than any other high-income country, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at 22 deaths for every 100,000 live births.

In recent years midwifery care has emerged as one potential way to address this crisis. Gaps in education and access, however, prevent many patients from working with midwives. A new 

 from Morgan Health, a business arm of JPMorgan Chase focused on healthcare benefits, sheds light on how these trends play out in populations with employer-sponsored insurance.

Just one in five patients on employer-sponsored insurance had a midwife as part of their care team during their last pregnancy, according to the survey held in March. A higher share of respondents (66%), though, said they would be interested in midwifery care for a future pregnancy.

“Lack of knowledge” and “insurance coverage” were cited as the main barriers to midwifery care among those who were interested in it, but didn’t use it.

“People want access to midwifery care,” said Bea Capistrant, VP of healthcare innovation at Morgan Health. “But there are some gaps that we can fill there.” Patients may struggle to understand the scope of a midwife’s practice, how they work with other providers, and how they manage existing health conditions, for example, she said.

A certified nurse midwife is a type of registered nurse that provides a range of reproductive health services, including prenatal care, childbirth, and postpartum care. They can work in hospitals and private practices, as well as birthing centers. Research indicates midwifery is generally associated with more positive clinical outcomes for pregnant people, including fewer cesarean sections and lower preterm birth rates, but a dearth of providers makes it difficult to secure such care in the US.

Available data shows insurance coverage for certified nurse midwives isn’t currently widespread, with just 25% of employers with 500 or more workers covering it, according to Mercer’s 2025 health and benefit strategies survey.

Should employers want to help their employees access midwifery care through a medical plan, they wouldn’t necessarily need to invest in a separate point solution, as some companies have done for doula or fertility services 

. Oftentimes employees can work with midwives just as they would any other provider, such as an OBGYN, on their health plan. Employers may work with their insurance carriers, then, to help connect workers with midwife “providers that are already in-network, on existing health plans,” Capistrant said.

When working with carrier partners, employers can focus on the delta between “educating patients” and “clarifying access,” Capistrant added.

The access piece may be trickier to address, particularly if employees are based in states where midwives aren’t sufficiently integrated into the maternal healthcare system. Midwives are less prevalent than OBGYNs in the US for a variety of reasons, including regulatory requirements that make it difficult to work in certain states, and lower reimbursement rates that translate to lower wages compared to other physicians.

If these broader systemic issues are addressed, though, Capistrant and others expressed optimism that employers would see a positive return-on-investment from directing their workers to midwifery care when it makes sense. One reason is that deliveries that incorporate midwifery care tend to see lower rates of costly procedures like C-sections and NICU visits.

“What our employers want from us is the best possible outcomes, and also they want to be able to manage costs across the board,” said Neel Shah, chief medical officer with Maven Clinic, a reproductive healthcare benefits firm that includes midwives in its network. “They can get more efficiency out of their spending, and they can produce better health by having solutions that incorporate midwives.”

A black pregnant woman with a medical cross logo glowing behind her

The case for midwifery in employer health benefits 

 Many patients are interested in working with midwives, but confront barriers tied in part to insurance coverage.

Midwifery care represents an untapped opportunity for benefits leaders

The White House recently rolled out several policies that seek to deliver on President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to expand access to in-vitro fertilization (IVF).

EMD Serono, a fertility medication manufacturer, will offer certain drugs at a reduced cost exclusively through TrumpRx, the White House said in a 

Additionally, the administration clarified that employers can offer fertility services as a standalone benefit, akin to how dental or vision insurance is often offered. The Department of Labor (DOL) 

 that details how businesses may go about this, but it’s unclear whether the policy will spur more companies to cover fertility treatment.

The policies recently rolled out by the White House follow an 

 seeking to protect and reduce the cost of IVF, but fall short of the president's campaign trail promises. Employers won’t be required to cover IVF, nor does the administration plan to offer any financial incentives for them to do so, at least for the moment.

Instead, several federal agencies announced that “employers can now offer standalone benefit packages to employees interested in coverage for treatment of infertility, including IVF,” the White House said. The DOL guidance clarified that employers can cover fertility treatments through an “excepted benefit,” which is a type of benefit that isn’t subject to certain requirements under laws like the Affordable Care Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

The agency also said it planned to propose a rule “aimed at providing additional ways that certain fertility benefits may be offered as a limited excepted benefit.”

While the excepted benefit recommendation was framed as a “new benefit option” for employers, the guidance doesn’t actually create any new pathways for companies to cover IVF, sources told HR Brew.

“I read this much more as maybe an affirmation of what was already possible, as opposed to new policy,” said Katie Keith, director of Georgetown Law’s Center for Health Policy and the Law. The types of excepted benefits the DOL points to—such as reimbursing an employee’s out-of-pocket costs through a Health Reimbursement Account, or offering fertility treatments through a specified illness policy—are currently possible, but may not make sense from a design perspective.

Nearly one-half (47%) of large employers cover IVF services in their largest medical plan, according to Mercer’s 

 on employer-sponsored health plans. And there’s a reason many employers choose to incorporate IVF into their group health plans, rather than offer it as a standalone benefit, Keith said. IVF patients have to undergo many different types of care, from taking prescription drugs to undergoing lab testing to ultimately seeking out providers for their pregnancy journeys, if the procedures are successful.

“I understand why employers would sort of treat it as part and parcel of their entire benefits package, because the care is so cross-cutting,” she said. While the Trump administration’s proposals may work for a “very narrow” benefit, “I just don’t think this gets you to the kind of comprehensive coverage that is being talked about,” Keith added.

Companies that provide fertility benefits were already offering the White House-endorsed options to their customers, but executives in the sector expressed optimism that these recent policies would move the needle even further on employer-sponsored coverage.

Carrot, a workplace fertility benefit provider, launched a “flex program” allowing employers to purchase its pharmaceutical benefit as a standalone option 

 the White House rolled out its policies. The company’s CEO, Tammy Sun, 

 she believed the moves marked “a really important moment” for the category of benefits Carrot sells.

Employers have increasingly designed fertility benefits as a “carve-out” from their health plans in recent years, Neel Shah, chief medical officer with Maven Clinic, another fertility benefit provider, told HR Brew via email. The excepted benefit approach that the White House supports “​​enables the shortest pathway to a healthy pregnancy, at the lowest possible cost, for most people,” he added.

Shah also pointed to the administration’s efforts to lower the cost of fertility medications, which represent “approximately one-third of the total costs of IVF,” he estimated. A full IVF treatment cycle can cost from $15,000 to $20,000 on average, and the potential for incurring increased health costs has historically been a top reason employers don’t cover it.

The deal to lower prices of some commonly used fertility drugs may help address this concern, but doesn’t tackle other types of treatment that contribute to the high cost of IVF, such as lab visits and embryo storage, 

President Donald Trump speaks at a podium while making an announcement about IVF access.

Trump policies unlikely to boost workplace IVF benefits

The Trump administration clarified that employers can offer IVF coverage as a standalone benefit, but it’s not clear whether the guidance will spur more companies to invest.

White House actions seem unlikely to move the needle on workplace fertility benefits

As Tesla shareholders prepare to vote on whether to grant CEO Elon Musk a pay package valued at nearly $1 trillion, the billionaire argued that this proposal isn’t actually about the money at all—but rather about maintaining control over the electric vehicle maker.

In an Oct. 22 earnings call, Musk and Tesla’s CFO, Vaibhav Taneja, said they didn’t want to refer to the proposed pay package as “compensation” at all. Instead, Musk said he was concerned with “how much voting control I have in Tesla,” particularly given the company’s goal of building an “enormous robot army.”

The package Musk referenced would award him additional shares if he meets certain Tesla benchmarks over the span of a decade, including delivering 1 million robots, and having 1 million robotaxis in commercial operation. Should he meet the milestones Tesla’s board has set, Musk could gain a 25% stake in the company, and in turn increase his voting power.

While the official vote is on Nov. 5, at least one major Tesla investor—Norway’s sovereign wealth fund—has said it will vote against the proposal.

In recent years, Musk has sought to pivot Tesla away from selling electric vehicles in favor of self-driving cars and a humanoid robot the company calls Optimus. On the call, the CEO claimed he wouldn’t spend the money if he received the proposed award, but said he wanted “a strong influence over that robot army” if he built it. “That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. Like I don’t feel comfortable building that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence,” he added.

(It should be noted that Musk has had a strong influence in both the public and private sector, with mixed results. After he bought the social media app Twitter, changed its name to X, and discarded the site’s content moderation rules, the platform’s value dropped by an estimated 80%).

Tesla board urges shareholders to approve Musk’s unusual pay package. 

If granted, this compensation plan would be the 

 in history—but its sheer size isn’t the only thing that makes it unusual.

The committee that put together this proposal also bucked traditional executive compensation norms when designing it, HR Brew 

. They decided against proposing Musk’s pay based on what CEOs earn at similar peer group companies, arguing such benchmarking would be “irrelevant” given the types of goals that Tesla’s CEO has been given.

This isn’t the first time Tesla’s board has tried to award Musk an unusually large compensation package. When shareholders decide whether or not to grant Musk this super-sized payday on Nov. 5, they’ll also be asked to vote on partially restoring Musk’s previous pay package, valued at 

While shareholders initially approved that previous pay package, Judge Kathaleen McCormick 

 on grounds that investors weren’t given adequate information about the proposal, and certain Tesla board members involved in the negotiations weren’t independent. Tesla is currently appealing that decision.

The debate over Musk’s pay comes at a time when the gap between what CEOs earn compared to rank-and-file workers continues to invite scrutiny; Starbucks and United Healthcare are among the companies that have recently been criticized for awarding their CEOs pay packages that are much larger than what their median workers earn.

But beyond setting a new standard for CEO pay, the Nov. 5 shareholder vote could also have broader implications for corporate governance practices, a professor and student from Case Western Reserve School of Law recently argued in a 

 published in Bloomberg Law. The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in the case involving Musk’s previous 2018 package, they added, “will further determine whether Tesla’s governance approach becomes a framework for other founder-led companies or a cautionary tale about the limits of executive control and the importance of board independence.”

Facing off-camera, Elon Musk smiles widely in a suit.