Search

Introduction: Infertility, a global concern affecting both sexes, is influenced by modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. While the literature predominantly underscores the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in the realm of infertility treatment, a holistic compilation analysing the economic dimensions of such interventions is lacking. This systematic review aimed to fill this gap by evaluating the economic facets of lifestyle interventions in the management of infertility., Methods: An exhaustive search was conducted within the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from their inception to February 2024. The aim was to find articles related to the economic aspects of lifestyle interventions in infertility management. These included clinical studies covering economic outcomes and economic evaluations. The Drummond Checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies., Results: From an initial yield of 7555 articles, five studies were deemed eligible for inclusion, comprising three cost-effectiveness analyses, one prospective cohort study and a randomized controlled trial, all of which were undertaken in high-income countries (the Netherlands, Australia and Japan). These studies included patients receiving infertility treatments for conditions such as unexplained infertility, polycystic ovary syndrome, ovulation disorders, or mild male infertility, inclusive of individuals with and without obesity. The women who participated in these studies were up to 45 years of age. The findings suggested that integrating lifestyle intervention programmes tends to enhance pregnancy and live birth outcomes. These programmes encompass coaching, psychological or behavioural guidance, nutritional adjustments, exercise regimes, weight management, smoking cessation and mindfulness techniques. Moreover, these interventions are likely to be more cost-effective than standard infertility care., Conclusion: For couples embarking on infertility treatments, the integration of lifestyle interventions into their management strategy not only fosters clinical benefits but also represents a cost-effective alternative to conventional care, particularly within high-income settings., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Untaaveesup et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

BACKGROUND Infertility is an increasingly significant public health problem. However, thanks to the achievements of modern medicine, it is possible to take steps to treat it. The objective of this study was to present data about programs for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility that were developed, implemented, and financed by local governments at all levels in Poland in 2009-2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study was conducted based on the analysis of existing data from the Minister of Health. We present data on infertility diagnostics and treatment programs, the number of programs in particular years, the number of programs implemented by individual levels of local governments, the number of people participating in the programs, and the total cost of the programs in EUR. RESULTS Programs aimed at diagnosing/treating infertility began to be implemented in 2012 (most were implemented in 2019 and 2020, 18 each). Twenty-three local governments of various levels, including 5 communes, 13 cities with poviat rights, 1 poviat, and 4 voivodeships, participated in the implementation of these programs. A total of 22 379 people were covered by infertility diagnosis and treatment programs in the years 2012-2020. The cost of all implemented programs was over EUR 10.7 million. CONCLUSIONS The legal situation in Poland caused the vast majority of infertile couples who wanted to have children to have to self-finance in vitro fertilization procedures. A small number of local governments undertook actions aimed at co-financing in vitro fertilization procedures.

Background: ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important., Objective and Rationale: We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child., Search Methods: We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others., Outcomes: The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making., Wider Implications: The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: Which assited reproductive technology (ART) interventions in high-income countries are cost-effective and which are not?, Summary Answer: Among all ART interventions assessed in economic evaluations, most high-cost interventions, including preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for a general population and ICSI for unexplained infertility, are unlikely to be cost-effective owing to minimal or no increase in effectiveness., What Is Known Already: Approaches to reduce costs in order to increase access have been identified as a research priority for future infertility research. There has been an increasing number of ART interventions implemented in routine clinical practice globally, before robust assessments of evidence on economic evaluations. The extent of clinical effectiveness of some studied comparisons has been evaluated in high-quality research, allowing more informative decision making around cost-effectiveness., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed a systematic review and searched seven databases (MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, ECONLIT, SCOPUS, and CINAHL) for studies examining ART interventions for infertility together with an economic evaluation component (cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, or cost-minimization assessment), in high-income countries, published since January 2011. The last search was 22 June 2022., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Two independent reviewers assessed publications and included those fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Studies were examined to assess the cost-effectiveness of the studied intervention, as well as the reporting quality of the study. The chosen outcome measure and payer perspective were also noted. Completeness of reporting was assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard. Results are presented and summarized based on the intervention studied., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The review included 40 studies which were conducted in 11 high-income countries. Most studies (n = 34) included a cost-effectiveness analysis. ART interventions included medication or strategies for controlled ovarian stimulation (n = 15), IVF (n = 9), PGT-A (n = 7), single embryo transfer (n = 5), ICSI (n = 3), and freeze-all embryo transfer (n = 1). Live birth was the mostly commonly reported primary outcome (n = 27), and quality-adjusted life years was reported in three studies. The health funder perspective was used in 85% (n = 34) of studies. None of the included studies measured patient preference for treatment. It remains uncertain whether PGT-A improves pregnancy rates compared to IVF cycles managed without PGT-A, and therefore cost-effectiveness could not be demonstrated for this intervention. Similarly, ICSI in non-male factor infertility appears not to be clinically effective compared to standard fertilization in an IVF cycle and is therefore not cost-effective. Interventions such as use of biosimilars or HMG for ovarian stimulation are cheaper but compromise clinical effectiveness., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Lack of both preference-based and standardized outcomes limits the comparability of results across studies. The selection of efficacy evidence offered for some interventions for economic evaluations is not always based on high-quality randomized trials and systematic reviews. In addition, there is insufficient knowledge of the willingness to pay thresholds of individuals and state funders for treatment of infertility. There is variable quality of reporting scores, which might increase uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results., Wider Implications of the Findings: Investment in strategies to help infertile people who utilize ART is justifiable at both personal and population levels. This systematic review may assist ART funders decide how to best invest to maximize the likelihood of delivery of a healthy child., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): There was no funding for this study. E.C. and R.W. receive salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) through their fellowship scheme (EC GNT1159536, RW 2021/GNT2009767). M.D.-T. reports consulting fees from King Fahad Medical School. All other authors have no competing interests to declare., Registration Number: Prospero CRD42021261537., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Financial "risk-sharing" fee structures in assisted reproduction programs charge patients a higher initial fee that includes multiple cycles but offers a partial or complete refund if treatment fails. This opinion of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee analyzes the ethical issues raised by these fee structures, including patient selection criteria, conflicts of interest, success rate transparency, and patient-informed consent. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2016., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

"Add-on" procedures are actively promoted on some fertility clinic websites as proven means to improve IVF success rates, especially for couples with repeated implantation/IVF failures. However, the actual contribution of these interventions to live birth rates remains inconclusive. At present, little is known about the type and quality of the information provided on the IVF clinics' websites regarding the merits of "add-ons." A systematic evaluation of the quality of information on "add-on" procedures in fertility clinic websites was performed using 10-criteria structured questionnaire. We included English language websites that presented in the Google.com search engine after typing the following key-words:"endometrial scratching"(ES), "intralipid infusions"(ILI), "assisted hatching"(AHA), "PGT-A," or "PGS". In total, 254 websites were evaluated. In most cases, an accurate description of the "add-on" procedures was provided (78.8%). However, only a minority (12%) reported their undetermined effectiveness. The use of PGT-A was more often encouraged (52.8%) than ES (23.6%) and AHA (16%). The cost was infrequently presented (6.9%). Scientific references were only rarely provided for ILI, versus 12.7% for ES, 4.0% for AHA, and 5.6% for PGT-A. The information entry date was often missing. None of the websites reported the clinic's pregnancy-rate following the "add-on" procedures. Information on "add-ons" available to patients from IVF clinic websites is often inaccurate. This could perpetuate false myths among infertile patients about these procedures and raises concern regarding possible commercial bias. It is imperative that IVF clinic websites will better communicate the associated risks and uncertainties of "add-ons" to prospective patients., (© 2021. Society for Reproductive Investigation.)

Objective: To characterize the interventional clinical trials in infertility and to assess whether trial location or industry sponsorship was associated with trial noncompletion., Design: Retrospective review of trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov., Setting: None., Patient(s): None., Intervention(s): None., Main Outcome Measure(s): Descriptive statistics characterizing the attributes of the clinical trials including intervention type, topic, population, completion status, size, location, sponsor, and results. The effects of the sponsor and trial location on trial noncompletion were assessed via logistic regression., Result(s): In total, 505 trials initiated between 2010 and 2020 were included in our analysis. Drug interventions were the most commonly studied (45%); ovarian stimulation trials accounted for 27% of the studies. Live birth was tracked as an outcome by 20% of the studies; 3% of the trials included mental health outcomes. Few trials (15%) enrolled male participants. Only 11% of the trials reported results, and 4% of the trials reported the race or ethnicity of the participants. Most trials (82%) were conducted outside the United States. Overall, 18% of the trials were not completed, most often because of lack of accrual (47%). United States trials had over twice the odds of noncompletion in univariate analysis (odds ratio = 2.48, 95% confidence interval = [1.47, 4.17]); however, this relationship lost significance after adjusting for potential confounders (odds ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval = [0.42, 2.14]). Trial sponsorship was not associated with trial noncompletion., Conclusion(s): Infertility trials predominantly investigated drug interventions, particularly ovarian stimulation. Live birth was an infrequent outcome despite its relevance to patients. Clinical trials should aim to address the unmet needs in fertility care and be inclusive of underserved populations affected by infertility., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine infertility-related fund-raising campaigns on a popular crowdfunding website and to compare campaign characteristics across states with and without legislative mandates for insurance coverage for infertility-related care., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Online crowdfunding platform (GoFundMe) between 2010 and 2020., Patient(s): GoFundMe campaigns in the United States containing the keywords "fertility" and "infertility.", Intervention(s): State insurance mandates for infertility treatment coverage., Main Outcome Measure(s): Primary outcomes included fund-raising goals, funds raised, campaign location, and campaigns per capita., Result(s): Of the 3,332 infertility-related campaigns analyzed, a total goal of $52.6 million was requested, with $22.5 million (42.8%) successfully raised. The average goal was $18,639 (standard deviation [SD] $32,904), and the average amount raised was $6,759 (SD $14,270). States with insurance mandates for infertility coverage had fewer crowdfunding campaigns per capita (0.75 vs. 1.15 campaigns per 100,000 population than states without insurance mandates., Conclusion(s): We found a large number of campaigns requesting financial assistance for costs associated with infertility care, indicating a substantial unmet financial burden. States with insurance mandates had fewer campaigns per capita, suggesting that mandates are effective in mitigating this financial burden. These data can inform future health policy legislation on the state and federal levels to assist with the financial burden of infertility., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To determine the frequency of and factors associated with a patient being declined from pursuing a cycle of in vitro fertilization with autologous oocytes (IVF-AO)., Methods: A cross-sectional study using a nationwide cohort of female respondents aged 35 or over, who visited a US fertility clinic from 1/2015 to 3/2020, responded to the online FertilityIQ questionnaire ( http://www.fertilityiq.com ). All respondents were asked if they were previously declined from pursuing a cycle of IVF-AO. Examined demographic and clinical predictors included age, race/ethnicity, education, income, clinic type, care received in a mandated state, insurance coverage for fertility treatment, and self-reported infertility diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios for factors associated with being declined from pursuing IVF-AO., Results: Of 8660 women who met inclusion criteria, 418 (4.8%) reported previously being declined a cycle of IVF-AO. In the multivariate analysis, predictors of being declined from pursuing IVF-AO included increasing age, income of less than $50,000, and diagnoses of poor oocyte quality and diminished ovarian reserve. Predictors of being less likely to report decline included some college or college degree and diagnoses of male factor, unexplained or tubal infertility. Notably, diagnosis of PCOS or residence in a state with mandated fertility coverage was not predictive of patients being declined from pursuing IVF-AO., Conclusion: Nearly 5% of patients who pursued IVF reported being declined from pursuing IVF-AO. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and explore whether patients being declined treatment meet the criteria for futile or very poor prognosis., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To evaluate the use of a web-based application that assists in medication management during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment., Design: Multicenter randomized controlled trial., Setting: University hospitals., Patient(s): Women undergoing IVF., Intervention(s): Subjects were recruited to assess quality of life during IVF and were randomly assigned to use either the OnTrack application to assist with medication management or conventional medication management. Surveys were administered at four time points., Main Outcome Measure(s): Medication surplus, incidence of medication errors, amount of patient-initiated communication, and patient satisfaction., Result(s): A total of 153 women participated. The average number of portal messages and telephone calls was similar between groups. Twelve patients in the control group (12/69, 17.4%) and 8 patients in the case group (8/72, 11.1%) made medication errors. There were similar amounts of medication surplus in the two groups. The estimated cost of medication waste was $2,578 ± $2,056 in the control group and $2,554 ± $1,855 in the case group. Patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups., Conclusion(s): Use of a web-based application did not decrease medication errors, medication surplus, or patient-initiated messages. Many patients had a medication surplus, which can be an area of cost reduction during IVF., Clinical Trial Registration Number: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03383848., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Access to assisted reproductive technology (ART) and fertility preservation remains restricted in middle and low income countries. We sought to review the status of ART and fertility preservation in Brazil, considering social indicators and legislative issues that may hinder the universal access to these services. Although the Brazilian Constitution expressly provides the right to health, and ordinary law ensures the state is obliged to support family planning, access to services related to ART and fertility preservation is neither easy nor egalitarian in Brazil. Only a handful of public hospitals provide free ART, and their capacity far from meets demand. Health insurance does not cover ART, and the cost of private care is unaffordable to most people. Brazilian law supports, but does not command, the state provision of ART and fertility preservation to guarantee the right to family planning; therefore, the availability of state-funded treatments is still scarce, reinforcing social disparities. Economic projections suggest that including ART in the Brazilian health system is affordable and may actually become profitable to the state in the long term, not to mention the ethical imperative of recognizing infertility as a disease, with no reason to be excluded from a health system that claims to be 'universal'., (Copyright © 2021 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess public attitudes towards fertility treatment coverage and whether attitudes are influenced by infertility labels., Methods: Cross-sectional, web survey-based experiment using a national sample of 1226 United States adults. Participants read identical descriptions about infertility, with the exception of random assignment to infertility being labeled as a "condition," "disease," or "disability." Participants then responded to questions measuring their beliefs and attitudes towards policies related to the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. We measured public support for infertility policies, public preference for infertility labels, and whether support differed by the randomly assigned label used. We also queried associations between demographic data and support for infertility policies., Results: Support was higher for insurance coverage of infertility treatments (p=.014) and fertility preservation (p=.017), and infertility public assistance programs (p=.036) when infertility was described as a "disease" or "disability" compared to "condition." Participants who were younger, were planning or trying to conceive, had a family member or friend with infertility, and/or had a more liberal political outlook were more likely to support infertility policies. A majority of participants (78%) felt the term "condition" was the best label to describe infertility, followed by "disability" (12%). The least popular label was "disease" (10%). Those preferring "condition" were older (p<.001), more likely to be non-Hispanic White (p=.046), and less likely to have an infertility diagnosis (p<.001)., Conclusion: While less commonly identified as the best descriptors of infertility, labeling infertility as a "disease" or "disability" may increase support for policies that improve access to infertility care., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

In the United States, economic, racial, ethnic, geographic, and other disparities prevent access to fertility treatment and affect treatment outcomes. This opinion examines the factors that contribute to these disparities, proposes actions to address them, and replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2015., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the dropout rate between the first and second in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in a controlled population derived from a funded and actively managed system of care in New Zealand, including the reason for dropout and associated cumulative live birth rate., Design: Retrospective cohort., Setting: Multicenter IVF practice., Patient(s): Couples qualifying for publicly funded IVF treatment under New Zealand's Clinical Priority Assessment Criteria. Couples (n = 974) started treatment between July 2011 and June 2013, used their own gametes, and were eligible for up to 2 IVF packages of funded care (including the transfer of surplus embryos)., Intervention(s): None., Main Outcome Measure(s): IVF dropout rate, reason for dropout, and cumulative live birth rate., Result(s): A low IVF dropout rate between the first and second IVF cycle was reported within this controlled IVF population, with 10% of couples discontinuing treatment for reasons related to stress. The cumulative live birth rate in this "low dropout" population was 59% at the end of treatment, ranging from 72% (≤30 years) to 42% (38-39 years) according to female age. Most patients who discontinued for stress had a good prognosis, and a third of patients still had embryos in cryostorage. Only 30% of those who discontinued used the funded counseling services., Conclusion(s): A low dropout rate (10%) can be achieved within an actively managed IVF population. This was lower than previously reported, suggesting that prognosis, cost, and treatment management are the significant causes of dropout within the general IVF population. Couples with many embryos also require psychological support because of treatment fatigue or repeated transfers., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We review the history, current status, and potential future of state infertility mandates and focus on the business implications of mandates and on the inadequacies and reproductive injustice resulting from gaps between legislative intent and practical implementation. Nineteen states have passed laws that require insurers to either cover or offer coverage for infertility diagnoses and treatment. The qualifications for coverage, extent of coverage, and exemptions vary drastically from one state to another, resulting in deficiencies in access to care even within mandated states for certain groups, such as single individuals, patients in same-sex relationships, and patients pursuing fertility preservation. Although insurance coverage of fertility services in the United States has expanded as an increasing number of states have enacted infertility mandates, significant gaps in implementation and access remain even among states with existing mandates. Provider, patient, and legislative advocacy is warranted in the name of reproductive justice to expand insurance coverage and, in turn, maximize reproductive outcomes, which have been shown to improve as financial barriers are lifted., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In today's changing health care landscape, it has become necessary that providers have a fundamental understanding of practice management as pertinent to the care they provide. The reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) practice is a uniquely complex setting with many component parts, necessitating frequent assessment and collaboration to provide safe, quality, and cost-effective care. In this review, we aim to describe the basics of medical practice management, divided into six sections: practice models; operations; patient safety; patient experience; employee recruitment; development, and satisfaction; and technology. These topics will be presented with a focus on the application of these principles to the REI practice., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe the willingness to pay (WTP) of infertile couples for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment., Method: This was a prospective study with an anonymous questionnaire for infertile couples in an academic setting. Clinical characteristics were analyzed by a Student's t test or Mann-Whitney test, categorical variables were compared by a chi-square or Fisher exact test, and correlations were assessed using a Spearman's test. An alpha of 5% was adopted., Results: Mean female and male ages were 31.5 and 35.9 years, respectively; 80.2% were married; 19.8% were in consensual union; 48.1% of women had college degrees; and 49.4% of men had a high school education. Most women (77.8%) and men (75.3%) were white, with a household income of class C. Average duration of union was 8.5 years, and average infertility was 4.7 years. Using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) evaluation and the technique of "direct questioning," the average value was determined to be R$18 720.18 (by payment scale R$22 831.17). WTP positively correlated with household income and each woman's education level. Previous parenthood or use of public health system negatively correlated with WTP., Conclusion: We conclude that the higher the couple's monthly income and the woman's educational level, the higher the WTP for an IVF treatment; previous parenthood determined a lower WTP for an IVF treatment, and previous use of the Brazilian Unified Health System, determined a lower WTP for an IVF treatment., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR--The professional society for health economics and outcomes research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization, halting the principal income activities worldwide. The International Monetary Fund predicts that the imminent economic recession will be worse than the global financial crisis of 2008, which severely affected the economy of Southern European countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain. There was then an abysmal drop in the Spanish yearly population growth curve as families could not afford to have children in that economic context; this only worsened the already existing demographic problems in that Spain has a constantly ageing population and one of the lowest fertility indicators in Europe. Taking into consideration that female age is the most important independent variable of success at the time of conception, probably thousands of potentially fertile couples were lost while waiting for more promising circumstances. With the COVID-19 pandemic a similar situation is being faced, where reproductive rights are imperiled by not being able to choose when to have children due to economic coercion. Therefore, governments worldwide should take measures to palliate the possible sociodemographic crisis that will follow the economic recession and try to ease the burden that many families might face during the following years., (Copyright © 2020 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Improving access to care is an issue at the forefront of reproductive medicine. We sought to describe how one academic center, set in the background of a large and diverse metropolitan city, cares for patients with extremely limited access to reproductive specialists., Methods: The NYU Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) Fellowship program provides a "fellow-run clinic" within Manhattan's Bellevue Hospital Center, which is led by the REI fellows and supervised by the REI attendings of the NYU Langone Health system. A description of the history of the hospital as well as the logistics of the fertility clinic is provided as a logistical template for implementation., Results: The fellow-run fertility clinic at Bellevue hospital is held on two half days per month seeing approximately 150 new patients per year. The fertility workup, counseling, surgery, as well as ovulation induction, and early pregnancy management are offered within the construct of the fellowship and residency at NYU. Barriers to care and ways to circumvent those barriers are discussed in detail., Conclusion: By utilizing the ambition and construct of the OB/GYN programs, we greatly improve care for an otherwise underserved patient population by offering an efficient and optimal infertility workup and treatment in a population that would otherwise be without care. We utilize the framework of graduate medical education to provide autonomy, experience, and mentorship to both residents and fellows in our programs in an effort to provide a solution to combating inequity in infertility care.

Although infertility is now recognized as a disease by multiple organizations including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, private insurance companies rarely include coverage for infertility treatments. In this review, the authors assess the current state of care delivery for male infertility care in the United States. They discuss the scope of male infertility as well as the unique burdens it places on patients and review emerging market forces that could affect the future of care delivery for male infertility., Competing Interests: Disclosure None (M.O. Strasser). The author receive grant funding from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for quality improvement activities (J.M. Dupree)., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Research Question: What is the cost-effectiveness of gonadotrophins compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation under strict cancellation criteria?, Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Between July 2013 and March 2016, 738 couples were randomized to gonadotrophins (369) or clomiphene citrate (369) in a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands. The direct medical costs of both strategies were compared. Direct medical costs included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, insemination and, if applicable, pregnancy monitoring. Non-parametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in estimates. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between gonadotrophins and clomiphene citrate for ongoing pregnancy and live birth was assessed., Results: The mean costs per couple were €1534 for gonadotrophins and €1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of €468; 95% confidence interval [CI] €464-472). As ongoing pregnancy rates were 31% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 26% in women allocated to clomiphene citrate (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.47), the ICER was €21,804 (95% CI €11,628-31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and €17,044 (95% CI €8998-25,090) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins., Conclusions: Gonadotrophins are more expensive compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, without being significantly more effective., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Adjuncts, more often known as add-ons, are now part of the landscape of an in vitro fertilization cycle. Since the early days of in vitro fertilization, fertility services have rightly been seeking improved success rates. At present there are a multitude of choices for patients who are usually presented with a menu of add-ons to choose from. This is driven by the desire to give patients the best chances of becoming parents. This Views and Reviews series discusses all aspects of add-ons. It is not exhaustive as even as we are finishing the preparation of the series, there is a new study about the use of cytokines as an add-on. The overall conclusion from this series of articles is that despite considerable efforts to establish benefits with add-ons that there is a paucity of data when we consider the outcome of live birth., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

In vitro fertilization and embryo transplantation (IVF-ET) technology is one of the main treatments for infertility. But IVF-ET is expensive and has not be covered by health insurance in most developing countries. Therefore, how to obtain the maximum success rate with the minimum cost is a common concern of clinicians and patients. At present, the economic studies on IVF-ET mainly focus on different ovulation stimulating drugs, different ovulation stimulating protocols, different transplantation methods and the number of transplants. But the process of IVF-ET is complex, the relevant methods of economic study are diverse, and there are no unified standard for outcome indicators, so there is no unified conclusion for more economical and effective protocol by now. Therefore, to analyze the economic studies of IVF-ET, and to explore appropriate evaluation methods and cost-effective protocols will be helpful for reasonable allocation of medical resources and guidance of clinical selection. It would provide policy reference to include the costs of IVF-ET treatment in health insurance in the future.

Objective: To investigate factors associated with early IVF treatment discontinuation., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Academic medical center., Patient(s): Six hundred sixty-nine first-attempt IVF patients who did not have a live birth., Intervention(s): None., Main Outcome Measure(s): Treatment discontinuation and time to return for a second IVF cycle., Result(s): Women without IVF insurance coverage were more likely to discontinue treatment than women with insurance coverage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.22-4.40). African-American women were more likely to discontinue treatment (aOR = 2.95; 95% CI, 1.54-5.66) and returned for treatment more slowly (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.71) than non-Hispanic white women, regardless of IVF insurance coverage or income. Women with a poor prognosis were more likely to discontinue treatment than women with a good prognosis. Older women with IVF insurance coverage or a good prognosis had a shorter time to return for a second IVF cycle than older women without IVF insurance coverage or with a poor prognosis. Estimated income, distance to clinic, fertility diagnosis, number of oocytes retrieved, and history of previous live birth were not associated with treatment discontinuation or time to return for a second IVF cycle after adjustment for covariates., Conclusion(s): IVF insurance coverage, race, age, and future treatment prognosis are associated with IVF treatment discontinuation and time to return., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the economical benefit of preimplantation genetic testing of aneuploidies (PGT-A) when applied in an extended culture and stringent elective single ET framework., Design: Theoretical cost-effectiveness study., Setting: Not applicable., Patients/animal(s): None., Intervention(s): Comparison of the cost-effectiveness between two IVF treatment strategies: serial transfer of all available blastocysts without genetic testing (first fresh transfer and subsequent frozen-thawed transfer); and systematic use of genetic testing (trophectoderm biopsy, freeze-all, and frozen-thawed transfers of euploid blastocysts). The costs considered for this analysis are based on regional public health system provider., Main Outcome Measure(s): Costs per live birth., Result(s): Cost-effectiveness profile of PGT-A improves with female age and number of available blastocysts. Sensitivity analyses varying the costs of ET, the costs of genetic analyses, the magnitude of the detrimental impact of PGT-A on live birth rate, and the crude live birth rates change to some extent the thresholds for effectiveness but generally confirm the notion that PGT-A can be economically advantageous in some specific subgroups., Conclusion(s): PGT-A can be cost-effective in specific clinical settings and population groups. Economic considerations deserve attention in the debate regarding the clinical utility of PGT-A., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To characterize the available support for infertility treatment and populations served by private foundations across the United States., Design: Web-based cross-sectional survey., Setting: Not applicable., Patient(s): Not applicable., Intervention(s): None., Main Outcome Measure(s): Geographies and populations served, dollar-amount and scope of financial assistance provided by private foundations for individuals seeking financial assistance for infertility treatment., Result(s): Thirty-seven private foundations were identified, 25 responded (68% response rate). More than one-half of the foundations had awarded grants to lesbian, gay, and transgender individuals, as well as single men and women. Forty percent of the foundations serve only a single state or geographic region. Foundations have provided 9,996 grants for infertility treatment, 1,740 in 2016 alone, with an average value of $8,191 per grant. The Livestrong foundation has provide more than 90% of these grants, and only to patients with a history of cancer. Twelve percent of foundations provide assistance for fertility preservation in patients with cancer, and 20% provide assistance for elective oocyte cryopreservation., Conclusion(s): Private foundations significantly increase access to infertility care for individuals and couples affected by cancer who could otherwise not afford treatment. Significant heterogeneity exists regarding the populations served and the services available for grant support by these foundations, and the landscape of options for patients unaffected by cancer is severely limited., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Health state utility values allow for comparison of treatments across different diseases. Utility values for fertility-impaired health states are currently unavailable. Such values are necessary in order to determine the relative costs-effectiveness of fertility treatments., Methods: This study aimed to determine utility weights for infertile and subfertile health states. In addition, it explored the Dutch general population's opinions regarding the inclusion of infertility treatments in the Dutch health insurers' basic benefit package. An online questionnaire was designed to determine the health-related quality of life values of six fertility-impaired health states. The study population consisted of a representative sample of the Dutch adult population. Respondents were asked to evaluate the health states through direct health valuation methods, i.e. the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Time Trade-Off (TTO) method. In addition, respondents were asked about their opinions regarding reimbursement of fertility-related treatments., Results: The respondents' (n = 767) VAS scores ranged from 0.640 to 0.796. TTO utility values ranged from 0.792 to 0.868. Primary infertility and subfertility was valued lower than secondary infertility and subfertility. In total, 92% of the respondents stated that fertility treatments should be fully or partially reimbursed by the health insurance basic benefit package., Conclusions: Having fertility problems results in substantial disutilities according to the viewpoint of the Dutch general population. The results make it possible to compare the value for money of infertility treatment to that of treatments in other disease areas. There is strong support among the general population for reimbursing fertility treatments through the Dutch basic benefit package.

Objectives We aimed to examine the extent to which health plan expenditures for infertility services differed by whether women resided in states with mandates requiring coverage of such services and by whether coverage was provided through a self-insured plan subject to state mandates versus fully-insured health plans subject only to federal regulation. Methods This retrospective cohort study used individual-level, de-identified health insurance claims data. We included women 19-45 years of age who were continuously enrolled during 2011 and classified them into three mutually exclusive groups based on highest treatment intensity: in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), or ovulation-inducing (OI) medications. Using generalized linear models, we estimated adjusted annual mean, aggregate, and per member per month (PMPM) expenditures among women in states with an infertility insurance mandate and those in states without a mandate, stratified by enrollment in a fully-insured or self-insured health plan. Results Of the 6,006,017 women continuously enrolled during 2011, 9199 (0.15%) had claims for IVF, 10,112 (0.17%) had claims for IUI, and 23,739 (0.40%) had claims for OI medications. Among women enrolled in fully insured plans, PMPM expenditures for infertility treatment were 3.1 times higher for those living in states with a mandate compared with states without a mandate. Among women enrolled in self-insured plans, PMPM infertility treatment expenditures were 1.2 times higher for mandate versus non-mandate states. Conclusions for Practice Recorded infertility treatment expenditures were higher in states with insurance reimbursement mandates versus those without mandates, with most of the difference in expenditures incurred by fully-insured plans.

Purpose: The number of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles is increasing and the majority of patients undergoing IVF pay out of pocket. Reproductive endocrinology and infertility practitioners employ different business models to help create financial pathways for patients needing IVF but details regarding the different types of business models being used and physician satisfaction with those models have not been described previously., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was sent to members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. The survey included 30 questions designed to assess demographics, practice patterns, and business models utilized., Results: A total of 222/736 (30%) physicians responded to the survey. The majority of physicians offer a-la-carte (67%), bundled services (69%), grants (57%), and cost/risk-sharing (50%). The majority answered that the single ideal business model is bundled services (53%). There was no significant association between financial package offered and region of practice or state-mandated insurance. The largest barrier to care reported was cost with or without state-mandated coverage (94% and 99%, respectively). The majority of practices are satisfied with their business model (75%). Higher physician satisfaction was associated with private practice [69% vs 27%; OR (95%CI) = 3.8 (1.7, 8.6)], male gender [59% vs 30%; OR = 2.4 (1.1, 5.4)], and offering bundled services [83% vs 59%; OR = 2.8 (1.2, 6.7)]., Conclusions: Physicians utilize a variety of business models and most are satisfied with their current model. Cost is the major barrier to care in states with and without mandated coverage.

Disparities in access to infertility care and insurance coverage of infertility treatment represent marked injustices in US health care. The World Health Organization defines infertility as a disease. Infertility has multiple associated billing codes in use, as determined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems . However, the often-prohibitive costs associated with infertility treatment, coupled with the lack of universal insurance coverage mandates, contribute to health care inequity, particularly along racial and socioeconomic lines., (© 2018 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Objective: Young adult (YA) cancer survivors who received gonadotoxic therapy are at risk for impaired fertility and/or childbearing difficulties. This study explored the experiences and financial concerns of survivors pursuing family building through assisted reproductive technology (ART) and adoption., Methods: Retrospective study of data collected from grant applications for financial assistance with family building. Grounded theory methodology using an inductive data-driven approach guided qualitative data analysis., Results: Participants (N = 46) averaged 32 years old (SD = 3.4) were primarily female (81%) and married/partnered (83%). Four main themes were identified representing the (1) emotional experiences and (2) financial barriers to family building after cancer, (3) perceived impact on partners, and (4) disrupted life trajectory. Negative emotions were pervasive but were balanced with hope and optimism that parenthood would be achieved. Still, the combination of high ART/adoption costs, the financial impact of cancer, and limited sources for support caused extreme financial stress. Further, in the face of these high costs, many survivors reported worry and guilt about burdening partners, particularly as couples failed to meet personal and societal expectations for parenthood timelines., Conclusion: After cancer, YAs face numerous psychosocial and financial difficulties in their pursuits of family building when ART/adoption is needed to achieve parenthood. Survivors interested in future children may benefit from follow-up fertility counseling post-treatment including discussion of ART options, surrogacy, and adoption, as appropriate, and potential barriers. Planning for the financial cost and burden in particular may help to avoid or mitigate financial stress later on., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Research Question: Does delaying IVF for 6 months in couples with unexplained infertility, compared with immediate IVF treatment, decrease the cost of IVF without compromising success rates?, Design: Decision modelling was used to evaluate the cost and outcomes of immediate IVF versus delayed IVF for a cohort of women aged <40 years suffering unexplained infertility. Australian data and costs were used in the analysis. For different age groups, three scenarios were tested where 10%, 50% and 90% of couples with unexplained infertility delayed IVF for 6 months if they had a good prognosis for natural conception. The study included a total of 8781 couples aged <40 years, diagnosed with unexplained infertility and who had IVF in 2013., Results: The studied couples underwent 27,648 fresh and frozen embryo transfers, for an estimated total cost of $141 million. Potential out-of-pocket cost savings if 90% of couples delayed IVF ranged from $4.7 to $12.2 million, with Medicare cost savings of up to $15.1 million. The impact on the total pregnancy and live birth rates after 18 months was minimal., Conclusions: In couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for natural conception, delaying IVF for 6 months could substantially decrease out-of-pocket costs without compromising pregnancy and live birth rates over an 18-month period., (Copyright © 2018 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To study the reason(s) why insured patients discontinue in vitro fertilization (IVF) before achieving a live birth., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Private academically affiliated infertility center., Patient(s): A total of 893 insured women who had completed one IVF cycle but did not return for treatment for at least 1 year and who had not achieved a live birth were identified; 312 eligible women completed the survey., Intervention(s): None., Main Outcome Measure(s): Reasons for treatment termination., Result(s): Two-thirds of the participants (65.2%) did not seek care elsewhere and discontinued treatment. When asked why they discontinued treatment, these women indicated that further treatment was too stressful (40.2%), they could not afford out-of-pocket costs (25.1%), they had lost insurance coverage (24.6%), or they had conceived spontaneously (24.1%). Among those citing stress as a reason for discontinuing treatment (n = 80), the top sources of stress included already having given IVF their best chance (65.0%), feeling too stressed to continue (47.5%), and infertility taking too much of a toll on their relationship (36.3%). When participants were asked what could have made their experience better, the most common suggestions were evening/weekend office hours (47.4%) and easy access to a mental health professional (39.4%). Of the 34.8% of women who sought care elsewhere, the most common reason given was wanting a second opinion (55.7%)., Conclusion(s): Psychologic burden was the most common reason why insured patients reported discontinuing IVF treatment. Stress reduction strategies are desired by patients and could affect the decision to terminate treatment., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In Australia, societal and individual preferences for funding fertility treatment remain largely unknown. This has resulted in a lack of evidence about willingness to pay (WTP) for fertility treatment by either the general population (the funders) or infertile individuals (who directly benefit). Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment (SPDCE) approach has been suggested as a more appropriate method to inform economic evaluations of fertility treatment. We outline the protocol for an ongoing study which aims to assess fertility treatment preferences of both the general population and infertile individuals, and indirectly estimate their WTP for fertility treatment., Methods and Analysis: Two separate but related SPDCEs will be conducted for two population samples-the general population and infertile individuals-to elicit preferences for fertility treatment to indirectly estimate WTP. We describe the qualitative work to be undertaken to design the SPDCEs. We will use D-efficient fractional experimental designs informed by prior coefficients from the pilot surveys. The mode of administration for the SPDCE is also discussed. The final results will be analysed using mixed logit or latent class model., Ethics and Dissemination: This study is being funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant AP1104543 and has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC 17255) and a fertility clinic's ethics committee. Findings of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at various conferences. A lay summary of the results will be made publicly available on the University of New South Wales National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit website. Our results will contribute to the development of an evidence-based policy framework for the provision of cost-effective and patient-centred fertility treatment in Australia., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Purpose: The Cap-Score™ was developed to assess the capacitation status of men, thereby enabling personalized management of unexplained infertility by choosing timed intrauterine insemination (IUI), versus immediate in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in individuals with a low Cap-Score™. The objective of this study was to estimate the differences in outcomes and costs comparing the use of the Cap-Score™ with timed IUI (CS-TI) and the standard of care (SOC), which was assumed to be three IUI cycles followed by three IVF-ICSI cycles., Methods: We developed and parameterized a decision-analytic model of management of unexplained infertility for women based on data from the published literature. We calculated the clinical pregnancy rates, live birth rates, and medical costs comparing CS-TI and SOC. We used Monte Carlo simulation to quantify uncertainty in projected estimates and performed univariate sensitivity analysis., Results: Compared to SOC, CS-TI was projected to increase the pregnancy rate by 1-26%, marginally reduce live birth rates by 1-3% in couples with women below 40 years, increase live birth rates by 3-7% in couples with women over 40 years, reduce mean medical costs by $4000-$19,200, reduce IUI costs by $600-$1370, and reduce IVF costs by $3400-$17,800, depending on the woman's age., Conclusion: The Cap-Score™ is a potentially valuable clinical tool for management of unexplained infertility because it is projected to improve clinical pregnancy rates, save money, and, depending on the price of the test, increase access to treatment for infertility.

Objective: To report on outcomes from a university-based low-cost and low-complexity IVF program using mild stimulation approaches and simplified protocols to provide basic access to ART to a socioculturally diverse low-income urban population., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Academic infertility center., Patient(s): Sixty-five infertile couples were enrolled from a county hospital serving a low-resource largely immigrant population., Interventions(s): Patients were nonrandomly allocated to one of four mild stimulation protocols: clomiphene/letrozole alone, two clomiphene/letrozole-based protocols involving sequential or flare addition of low-dose gonadotropins, and low-dose gonadotropins alone. Clinical fellows managed all aspects of cycle preparation, monitoring, oocyte retrieval, and embryo transfer under an attending preceptor. Retrieval was undertaken without administration of deep anesthesia, and laboratory interventions were minimized. All embryo transfers were performed at the cleavage stage., Main Outcome Measure(s): Sociomedical demographics, treatment response, and pregnancy outcomes were recorded., Result(s): From August 2010 to June 2016, 65 patients initiated 161 stimulation IVF cycles, which resulted in 107 retrievals, 91 fresh embryo transfers, and 40 frozen embryo transfer cycles. The mean age of patients was 33.3 years, and mean reported duration of infertility was 5.3 years; 33.5% (54/161) of cycles were cancelled before oocyte retrieval, with 13% due to premature ovulation. Overall, cumulative live birth rates per retrieval including subsequent use of frozen embryos was 29.0%; 44.6% (29/65) of patients enrolled in the program achieved pregnancy., Conclusion(s): Use of mild stimulation protocols, simplified monitoring, and minimized laboratory handling procedures enabled access to care in a low-resource socioculturally diverse infertile population., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The cost of fertility treatment is expensive and interventions that reduce cost can lead to greater efficiency and fewer embryos transferred. Endometrial polyps contribute to infertility and are frequently removed prior to infertility treatment. It is unclear whether polypectomy reduces fertility treatment cost and if so, the magnitude of cost reduction afforded by the procedure. The aim of this study was to determine whether performing office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy prior to infertility treatment would be cost-effective. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were used to identify publications reporting pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic polypectomy. Studies were required to have a polypectomy treatment group and control group of patients with polyps that were not resected. The charges of infertility treatments and polypectomy were obtained through infertility organizations and a private healthcare cost reporting website. These charges were applied to a decision tree model over the range of pregnancy rates observed in the representative studies to calculate an average cost per clinical or ongoing pregnancy. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess cost savings of polypectomy over a range of pregnancy rates and polypectomy costs. Pre-treatment office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy ultimately saved €6658 ($7480) and €728 ($818), respectively, of the average cost per clinical pregnancy in women treated with four cycles of intrauterine insemination. Polypectomy prior to intrauterine insemination was cost-effective for clinical pregnancy rates greater than 30.2% for office polypectomy and 52.6% for operative polypectomy and for polypectomy price <€4414 ($4959). Office polypectomy or operative polypectomy saved €15,854 ($17,813) and €6644 ($7465), respectively, from the average cost per ongoing pregnancy for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treated women and was cost-effective for ongoing pregnancy rates greater than 26.4% (office polypectomy) and 31.7% (operative polypectomy) and polypectomy price <€6376 ($7164). These findings suggested that office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy was cost-effective when performed prior to both intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization over a range of plausible pregnancy rates and procedural costs., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Study Question: How does the cost-effectiveness (CE) of immediate IVF compared with postponing IVF for 1 year, depend on prognostic characteristics of the couple?, Summary Answer: The CE ratio, i.e. the incremental costs of immediate versus delayed IVF per extra live birth, is the highest (range of €15 000 to >€60 000) for couples with unexplained infertility and for them depends strongly on female age and the duration of infertility, whilst being lowest for endometriosis (range 8000-23 000) and, for such patients, only slightly dependent on female age and duration of infertility., What Is Known Already: A few countries have guidelines for indications of IVF, using the diagnostic category, female age and duration of infertility. The CE of these guidelines is unknown and the evidence base exists only for bilateral tubal occlusion, not for the other diagnostic categories., Study Design, Size, Duration: A modelling approach was applied, based on the literature and data from a prospective cohort study among couples eligible for IVF or ICSI treatment, registered in a national waiting list in The Netherlands between January 2002 and December 2003., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: A total of 5962 couples was included. Chances of natural ongoing pregnancy were estimated from the waiting list observations and chances of ongoing pregnancy after IVF from follow-up data of couples with primary infertility that began treatment. Prognostic characteristics considered were female age, duration of infertility and diagnostic category. Costs of IVF were assessed from a societal perspective and determined on a representative sample of patients. A cost-effectiveness comparison was made between two scenarios: (I) wait one more year and then undergo IVF for 1 year and (II) immediate IVF during 1 year, and try to conceive naturally in the following year. Comparisons were made for strata determined by the prognostic factors. The final outcome was a live birth., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The gain in live birth rate of the immediate IVF scenario versus postponed IVF increased with female age, and was independent from diagnostic category or duration of infertility. By contrast, the corresponding increase in costs primarily depended on diagnostic category and duration of infertility. The lowest CE ratio was just below €10 000 per live birth for endometriosis from age 34 onwards at 1 year duration. The highest CE ratio reached €56 000 per live birth for unexplained infertility at age 30 and 3 years duration, dropping to values below € 30 000 per live birth from age 32 onwards. It reached values below €20 000 per live birth with 3 years duration at age 34 and older. The CE ratio was in between for the three other diagnostic categories (i.e. Male infertility, Hormonal and Immunological/Cervical)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: We applied estimates of chances with IVF, excluding frozen embryos, for which we had no data. Therefore, we do not know the effect of frozen embryo transfers on the CE., Wider Implications of the Findings: The duration of infertility at which IVF becomes cost-effective depends, firstly, on the level of society's willingness to pay for one extra live birth, and secondly, given a certain level of willingness to pay, on the woman's age and the diagnostic category. In current guidelines, the chances of a natural conception should always be taken into account before deciding whether to start IVF treatment and at which time., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, grant 945-12-013). ZonMW had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the report. Competing interests: none., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Infertility treatments remain expensive and in many countries are covered by little, if any, insurance, raising critical questions concerning how patients and providers view and make decisions regarding these challenges. In-depth semi-structured interviews of approximately 1 hour were conducted with 37 IVF providers and 10 patients (17 physicians, 10 other providers and 10 patients), and were systematically analyzed. These data suggest current insurance policies and legislation pose critical ethical and logistical challenges for both patients and providers. These individuals face multiple uncertainties about costs and insurance, related to unclear causes of fertility, treatment length, costs and outcomes, and odds that insurers will cover expenses. Insurers frequently decline to agree to reimbursement beforehand, and decide only afterwards, case-by-case, generating stress. Patients and providers thus may not be able to predict how best to allocate limited resources. Providers may advocate for patients, but are usually unsuccessful. Patients may adopt several strategies: e.g., moving/seeking treatment elsewhere, switching or feeling "stuck" in jobs because of insurance, seeking "free" medications, going into debt, or using funds intended for other purposes. Patients do not perceive and respond to resource limitations as fixed phenomena-i.e., patients do not see treatment simply as "affordable" or not. Rather, patients face quandaries of how much to keep spending-how much a child is worth-and are forced to make complex risk/benefit calculations. Couples can disagree, straining relationships. In sum, these data, the first to explore how providers and patients struggle, view, and make decisions regarding limited insurance and resources for infertility, raise several critical ethical and policy issues. These data suggest that individuals have difficulty translating profoundly life-altering, deeply personal quests for meaning and fulfillment into purely economic terms. These findings thus have important implications for future policy, practice, research, and patient and provider education.

Financial "risk-sharing" fee structures in assisted reproduction programs charge patients a higher initial fee but provide reduced fees for subsequent cycles and often a partial or complete refund if treatment fails. This opinion of the ASRM Ethics Committee analyzes the ethical issues raised by these fee structures, including patient selection criteria, conflicts of interest, success rate transparency, and patient informed consent. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2013 (Fertil Steril 2013;100:334-6)., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article examines how discourses on assisted reproductive technologies are locally appropriated, translated or contested in the specific cultural and political contexts of Poland and Sweden. The aim is to investigate how two national patients' organisations, namely the Polish association Nasz Bocian and the Swedish organisation Barnlängtan, articulate rights claims in the context of reproductive technologies. To this end, we investigate how these organisations utilise specific context-dependent and affectively laden political vocabularies in order to mobilise politically, and discuss how each of these two groups gives rise to a different set of politicised reproductive identities. In order to trace which political vocabularies the respective organisations utilise to mobilise their respective rights claims, we draw primarily on political discourse theory and concepts of political grammars and empty signifiers. Lastly, we discuss which political reproductive identities emerge as a result of these different versions of political mobilisation around assisted reproductive technologies., (© 2016 Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness.)

Objective: The number of couples seeking assisted reproduction services in pursuit of the dream of conceiving a child is growing. In developing countries 10 to 15% of couples of childbearing age cannot bear a child by natural means and the impossibility of conceiving a child has a significant impact on the health and well-being of the couple. The aim of this study was to evaluate the socioeconomic profile and the main causes of infertility of couples seeking assisted reproduction treatment through the public healthcare system., Methods: We analyzed 600 medical records of couples who sought infertility treatment at the public healthcare system, and we divided them into three groups according to age: 35 years, 35 to 39, and 40 years or more. In each group we analyzed the cause of infertility, the number of children of the spouses, the education level and family income., Results: The main cause of infertility was male-related in 34%, followed by tubal factor in 31.5%. We found that 56% of the women were less than 35 years old and 58% of the couples earned less than 3 minimum wages., Conclusion: The profile of the couples was: low-income, low education and less than 35 years of age. The cost of assisted reproductive treatment is still high, being restricted to couples of higher socioeconomic statuses. An effective public healthcare policy could minimize this problem by improving the quality of care for couples seeking infertility treatment at the public healthcare system., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTERESTS No conflict of interest have been declared.

ET is a critical step in an assisted reproduction cycle. Over the past decade there has been an increasing trend to extending culture from cleavage-stage to blastocyst transfer. There has also been a trend to single ET and reporting the success of an assisted reproductive cycle as a cumulative live-birth rate after using both fresh and frozen embryos. There is low evidence that fresh blastocyst transfer is associated with improved live-birth rates compared with fresh cleavage-stage embryos. However, in the few studies that report cumulative pregnancy rates after fresh and frozen transfers, no significant difference was found. Cleavage-stage transfer is associated with greater numbers of embryos available for freezing, and blastocyst transfer is associated with increased number of cycles with no embryos to transfer. Further well-designed studies are warranted to evaluate the outcomes for blastocyst transfer including cumulative live-birth rate after fresh and frozen transfers, time to live birth, costs of the different transfer strategies, and perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate factors associated with elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) utilization and its effect on assisted reproductive technology outcomes in the United States., Design: Historical cohort., Setting: Not applicable., Patient(s): Fresh IVF cycles of women aged 18-37 years using autologous oocytes with either one (SET) or two (double-embryo transfer [DET]) embryos transferred and reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System between 2004 and 2012. Cycles were categorized into four groups with ([+]) or without ([-]) supernumerary embryos cryopreserved. The SET group with embryos cryopreserved was designated as eSET., Intervention(s): None., Main Outcomes Measure(s): The likelihood of eSET utilization, live birth, and singleton non-low birth weight term live birth, modeled using logistic regression. Presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Result(s): The study included 263,375 cycles (21,917 SET[-]cryopreservation, 20,996 SET[+]cryopreservation, 103,371 DET[-]cryopreservation, and 117,091 DET[+]cryopreservation). The utilization of eSET (SET[+]cryopreservation) increased from 1.8% in 2004 to 14.9% in 2012 (aOR 7.66, 95% CI 6.87-8.53) and was more likely with assisted reproductive technology insurance coverage (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.54-1.66), Asian race (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.20-1.33), uterine factor diagnosis (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.37-1.59), retrieval of ≥16 oocytes (aOR 2.85, 95% CI 2.55-3.19), and the transfer of day 5-6 embryos (aOR 4.23, 95% CI 4.06-4.40); eSET was less likely in women aged 35-37 years (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73-0.80). Compared with DET cycles, the likelihood of the ideal outcome, term non-low birth weight singleton live birth, was increased 45%-52% with eSET., Conclusion(s): Expanding insurance coverage for IVF would facilitate the broader use of eSET and may reduce the morbidity and healthcare costs associated with multiple pregnancies., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate the national cost savings resulting from reductions in higher-order multiple (HOM) live births (defined as three or more fetuses), following the initial publication of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) guidelines on ET in 1998., Design: Descriptive use and cost analysis., Setting: Not applicable., Patient(s): Not applicable., Intervention(s): Not applicable., Main Outcome Measure(s): Estimates of the total number of HOM deliveries prevented (from 1998-2012) following the publication of SART guidelines; the associated healthcare savings (2014 US dollars)., Result(s): A singleton live birth was estimated to cost $17,100-$24,200. A twin live birth was estimated at $66,000-$117,500. A triplet live birth was estimated at $190,800-$456,300. The percentage of HOM gestations among all ART pregnancies decreased from 11.4% in 1997 to 2.0% in 2012, with the sharpest year-over-year decline of 20.3% occurring in the year following the publication of the guidelines. The number of prevented HOM deliveries from 1998 through 2012 was estimated to be between 13,500 and 16,300, corresponding to cost savings of $6.02B (billion) (range, $2.35B-$7.03B, 2014 US dollars)., Conclusion(s): Iatrogenic HOM gestations represent a substantial economic burden to our healthcare system. The introduction of guidelines for ET in 1998 coincided with a dramatic decrease in the HOM rate in subsequent years and an associated cumulative cost savings of more than $6B. Further reductions in HOM gestations could save up to an additional $2B annually., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)