An order of magnitude estimate for the procedures covered would probably average, with self payment, about $10K per couple.  That gives $700M per year, and probably represents a lower bound.  At an average annual cost of say $4000 per health care, that money would cover nearly 200,000 uninsured Connecticut residents.   Moreover, the success rate of the treatments is rather low; I think it is good that there is a cutoff age of 40, as I am assuming the law does not cover donor eggs and most responsible reproductive health practitioners won't take on a woman of over 40 with her own ova.  The odds are just way too low. 

 There is also the question of education; surely many are couples with fertility problems arising at youth.  However, for those who simply chose to wait, should we publicly subsidize their decision?  A woman who was interviewed for the piece who is over 40 lobbied hard for the law but was devastated by the limit on age.  I can understand the deep grief she feels, particularly since she has probably been pushing for this for some time, perhaps from before she was 40.  However, she went on to claim that the age limit (which insurance companies lobbied for) was tantamount to the insurance companies dictating how to lead her private life.  Frankly, I took offense to this.  When my wife and I went through a process of exploring fertility, we knew full well that our choices had led us to this and accepted the rather high cost.  I do not know whether this woman was rendered infertile by age or other, but there is no doubt that the combination will conspire to give exceptionally low odds to the fertility outcome, even more so than the dim prospects offered by age reduced viability of ova.    

 The other troubling aspect to all of this from my personal perspective is that while many friends have successfully undergone in vitro and have lovely families and children, there is the issue of adoption.  That was our initial choice, which we then temporarily abandoned in pursuit of the fertility dream after a number of our friends succeeded, and which we ultimately returned to after our fertility efforts came to naught.  Had we succeeded with the fertility efforts, we probably would not have come to know the two exceptional little kids that run around our house and brighten our lives, and we cannot imagine that we would have done better were those children the product of our own genes.  Having said this, though, I cannot deny the imposing desire of seeing my own genes running out in the world in my children, but I also cannot deny the profound sense of ease that came into both my wife and I when we returned to our original choice of adoption.  A multitude of anxieties simply lifted away. 

And, of course, adoption is not cheap either.
What I would thus favor is some extension of tax breaks or vouchers for adoption that are means tested, and for those with limited financial access who have infertility issues not associated solely with age that there be some limited form of mandatory coverage.   

Finally, I close on what might be the positive side of this law: my astute wife offered the perspective that this law (and the similar ones on the books in eleven other states) might help lower the costs of treatment by the insurance companies wrangling with doctors on costs.  If so, that would be a good thing.  ( I am not convinced, however.  The director of the Yale fertility clinic was interviewed and he said he considered the age limit a policy tragedy.  Call me cynical, but the fact that his potential market was considerably reduced by the age limit did not go unnoticed.)