Economics of assisted reproductive technologies

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 183-188

  Ata, Baris ^a   Seli, Emre ^b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Assisted reproductive technologies; Cost; Cost effectiveness; Economics; In vitro fertilization; Utilization

Indexed keywords

GONADOTROPIN DERIVATIVE;

COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HOSPITALIZATION COST; HUMAN; INFANT MORTALITY; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; INTRAUTERINE INSEMINATION; LIVE BIRTH; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; PREMATURE LABOR; PREMATURITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW;

FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH, REIMBURSEMENT; MULTIPLE BIRTH OFFSPRING; PREGNANCY; PREMATURE BIRTH; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED;

EID: 77951887503     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283373c13     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Collins J. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8: 265-277. (Pubitemid 34618944)
2. ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Social determinants of human reproduction. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 1518-1526.
3. Bhattacharya S, Porter M, Amalraj E, et al. The epidemiology of infertility in the North East of Scotland. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 3096-3107.
4. Joffe M. What has happened to human fertility? Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 295-307.
5. Mosher W, Pratt W. Fecundity and infertility in the United States, 1965-1988. Advance data from vital and health statistics 1990; 192: 192-193.
6. de Mouzon J, Lancaster P, Nygren KG, et al. World collaborative report on Assisted Reproductive Technology, 2002. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 2310-2320.
7. Nyboe Andersen A, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and intrauterine inseminations in Europe, 2005: results generated from European registers by ESHRE: ESHRE. The European IVF Monitoring Programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 1267-1287.
8. The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. National Data Summary. wwwsartorg. 2007 [Accessed 15 December 2009]
9. Wise PH, Pursley DM. Infant mortality as a social mirror. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 1558-1560.
10. Chambers GM, Sullivan EA, IshiharaO, et al. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2281-2294. Recent analysis and comparison of economic aspects of ART in developed countries. Authors report that out-of-pocket expenses after public reimbursement is the major determinant of utilization.
11. Gunby J, Bissonnette F, Librach C, Cowan L Assisted reproductive technologies in Canada: 2005 results from the Canadian Assisted Reproductive Technologies Register. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 1721-1730.
12. Hughes EG, Giacomini M. Funding in vitro fertilization treatment for persistent subfertility: the pain and the politics. Fertil Steril 2001; 76: 431-442. (Pubitemid 32780505)
13. Brown S. Patchwork ART legislation in Europe. Focus on reproduction 2009: 23.
14. Jarrell JF, Labelle R, Goeree R, et al. In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Online J Curr Clin Trials 1993; Doc No 73: [3483 words; 37 paragraphs].
15. Soliman S, Daya S, Collins J, Jarrell J. A randomized trial of in vitro fertilization versus conventional treatment for infertility. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 1239-1244. (Pubitemid 23163198)
16. Garceau L, Henderson J, Davis LJ, et al. Economic implications of assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 3090-3109. (Pubitemid 35469258)
17. Karande VC, Korn A, Morris R, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing the outcome and cost of in vitro fertilization with that of a traditional treatment algorithm as first-line therapy for couples with infertility. Fertil Steril 1999; 71: 468-475. (Pubitemid 29094123)
18. Goverde AJ, McDonnell J, Vermeiden JP, et al. Intrauterine insemination or invitro fertilisation in idiopathic subfertility and male subfertility: a randomised trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet 2000; 355: 13-18. (Pubitemid 30072177)
19. ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod Update 2009; 15: 265-277.
20. Practice Committee of the American Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Effectiveness and treatment for unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: S111-S114.
21. ESHRE Data collection and consortia. http://www.eshre.com/ESHRE/ •• English/Data-collection-Consortia/Europe-map-reimbursement/ page.aspx/739. [Accessed 16 December 2009] This article is an up-to-date interactive map providing detailed information about current legislation status and reimbursement policies in European countries.
22. American Heart Association. 2009 Update at a glance. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics. 2009: 33.
23. Neumann PJ, Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Med Care 1994; 32: 686-699.
24. Granberg M, Wikland M, Nilsson L, Hamberger L Couples' willingness to pay for IVF/ET. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1995; 74: 199-202.
25. Collins JA, Bustillo M, Visscher RD, Lawrence LD. An estimate of the cost of in vitro fertilization services in the United States in 1995. Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 538-545.
26. Connolly MP, Pollard MS, Hoorens S, et al. Long-term economic benefits attributed to IVF-conceived children: a lifetime tax calculation. Am J Manag Care 2008; 14: 598-604.
27. Reynolds MA, Schieve LA, Jeng G, Peterson HB. Does insurance coverage decrease the risk for multiple births associated with assisted reproductive technology? Fertil Steril 2003; 80: 16-23. (Pubitemid 36808848)
28. Jain T, Gupta RS. Trends in the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the United States. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 251-257. (Pubitemid 47080389)
29. Martin JR, Bromer JG, Patrizio P. Insurance coverage and IVF outcomes in • USA: analysis of recent trends in patients younger than 35 years old. Fertil Steril 2009; 92 (Supplement 3) : S52. Treatment outcomes are compared between states with and without mandate for assisted reproductive treatment. Number of embryos transferred and multiple pregnancy rates are lower in states with mandate for insurance coverage. Difference in overall pregnancy rates is minimal.
30. Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Macaluso M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance: United States, 2003. MMWR Surveill Summ 2006; 55: 1-22.
31. Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, Rebar RW, Tasca RJ. Infertility, assisted reproductive technology, and adverse pregnancy outcomes: executive summary of a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 967-977. (Pubitemid 46559087)
32. Bromer JG, Seli E. Assessment of embryo viability in assisted reproductive technology: shortcomings of current approaches and the emerging role of metabolomics. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008; 20: 234-241. (Pubitemid 351643510)
33. Bromer JG, Seli E. Preterm deliveries that result from ART-associated multiple • pregnancies in the United States: a cost analysis. Fertil Steril 2008; 90 (Supplement 1) : S210-S211. Modeling study assessing the cost of ART-associated multiple pregnancies and resultant prematurity. The costs are estimated to be around one billion US$ per annum, exceeding the cost of treatment itself.
34. Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2392-2402. (Pubitemid 40485991)
35. Lukassen HG, Braat DD, Wetzels AM, et al. Two cycles with single embryo transfer versus one cycle with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 702-708.