Employer-Sponsored Fertility and Family-Building Benefits Among 928 U.S. Employers.

Background Employer-sponsored fertility and family-building benefits are increasingly used to finance in vitro fertilization, fertility preservation, adoption, donor services, and, in some plans, surrogacy-related expenses. However, employer-level benefit design and financial limits are not consistently reported in publicly available sources. This study aimed to characterize publicly reported U.S. employer fertility and family-building benefits in 2026, focusing on benefit amounts, benefit design, administrators, and source quality. Methodology We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of publicly available employer-level benefit information compiled through August 12, 2026. Records were drawn from national employer-benefit surveys, employer-benefit directories, the Men Having Babies Workplace Benefits Database, published employer-benefit compilations, vendor information, and employer or program sources where available. Employer names were standardized and exact-name duplicates were removed. The analytic master dataset contained 928 unique employers. Exact-dollar analyses were restricted to the 67 (7.2%) employers with a standardized numerical family-building or surrogacy-related amount matched to an employer in the master dataset; categorical estimates were retained separately and were not converted to exact values. No missing values were imputed. Results The analytic master dataset included 928 unique employers, comprising a 664-employer base cohort and 264 employers added during a later directory expansion. The exact-dollar analytic subset consisted of 67 employers (7.2% of 928) with a standardized exact family-building or surrogacy-related amount. Among these 67 employers, the median reported amount was $25,000 (interquartile range = $20,000-$40,000), with a range of $2,500-$150,000; 54 of 67 (80.6%) had reported amounts of at least $20,000, 14 of 67 (20.9%) had amounts of at least $50,000, and six of 67 (9.0%) had amounts of at least $75,000. A named benefit administrator or program was publicly identified for 29 of 928 (3.1%) employers; Carrot, Maven, Kindbody, and Progyny were the most frequently named specialty vendors. Evidence quality was heterogeneous: most exact dollar amounts were supported by secondary or directory sources rather than current employer plan documents. Conclusions Publicly reported employer fertility and family-building benefits vary substantially in amount and design. Among employers with exact numerical amounts available, the findings underscore that offering a family-building benefit does not necessarily indicate comprehensive financial protection because benefit magnitude and covered services vary. Future research using primary plan documents and utilization data should examine how benefit design affects access, out-of-pocket spending, and treatment decisions.