State-mandated insurance coverage is associated with the approach to hydrosalpinges before IVF

Female physician infertility: the lack of adequate insurance coverage

There is a recent decrease in fertility rates among the general population in the United States. Female physicians, who are seeking assisted reproductive technology at growing rates often because of delayed childbearing while completing medical training, are included in this statistic. With more than 340,000 practicing female physicians within the United States, female physician infertility is especially relevant. However, despite the increasing number of female physicians seeking assisted reproductive technology, there is a lack of access to adequate insurance coverage for this higher-risk patient subset. This commentary reviewed the importance of increasing infertility rates among female physicians, the associated economic burden, limited insurance coverage, and disparities in access to infertility insurance coverage. Recent studies suggest that up to 25% of female physicians are seeking assisted reproductive technology. Currently, 1 cycle of assisted reproductive technology, or egg retrieval, is estimated at approximately $19,000, with many people needing multiple cycles. Many top academic institutions do not offer enough infertility benefits to cover 1 egg retrieval cycle and the often prerequisite, less invasive procedures. Among those seeking oocyte or embryo cryopreservation for elective fertility preservation, few institutions offer coverage. Addressing and highlighting limited and variable institutional infertility coverage are crucial to gaining equal and accessible reproductive care for female physicians.

The impact of insurance mandates on donor oocyte utilization: an analysis of 39,338 donor oocyte cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry

BACKGROUND

A total of 19 states passed legislation mandating insurance coverage of assisted reproductive technology, and out-of-pocket costs associated with in vitro fertilization vary significantly depending on the region. Consequently, it has been observed that assisted reproductive technology utilization differs regionally and is associated with the presence of an insurance mandate. However, it is unknown whether regional differences exist among patients using donor oocytes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the patient and cycle-specific parameters associated with the use of donor oocytes according to the insurance mandate status of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology clinic in which the assisted reproductive technology cycle was performed.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a retrospective cohort study using national data collected from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry for 39,338 donor oocyte cycles and 242,555 autologous oocyte cycles performed in the United States from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016. Cycles were stratified by insurance mandate of the state in which the assisted reproductive technology cycle was performed: comprehensive (coverage for at least 4 cycles of assisted reproductive technology), limited (coverage limited to 1-3 assisted reproductive technology cycles), offer (insurance mandates exist but exclude assisted reproductive technology treatment), and no mandate. The primary outcome was the number of previous autologous assisted reproductive technology cycles of the recipient. The secondary outcomes included age, serum follicle stimulating hormone level, frozen donor oocyte utilization, day of embryo transfer, number of embryos transferred, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. Analyses were adjusted for day of transfer, number of embryos transferred, and age of the recipient.

RESULTS

Patients in no mandate states underwent fewer autologous assisted reproductive technology cycles (mean, 1.1; standard deviation, 1.6) before using donor oocytes than patients in offer (mean, 1.7; standard deviation, 2.5; P<.01), limited (mean, 1.5; standard deviation, 2.5; P<.01), and comprehensive (mean, 1.7; standard deviation, 2.0; P<.01) states. Patients in no mandate states were more likely to use frozen oocytes than patients in offer (relative risk, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.57), limited (relative risk, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.54), and comprehensive (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.99) states. Clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were similar among recipients of donor oocytes, regardless of insurance mandate.

CONCLUSION

Despite similar ages and ovarian reserve parameters, patients without state-mandated insurance coverage of assisted reproductive technology were more likely to use frozen donor oocytes and undergo fewer autologous in vitro fertilization cycles than their counterparts in partial or comprehensive insurance coverage states. These differences in donor oocyte utilization highlight the financial barriers associated with pursuing assisted reproductive technology in uninsured states.

State-Mandated Insurance Coverage and Preimplantation Genetic Testing in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between state-mandated insurance coverage for infertility treatment in the United States and the utilization of and indication for preimplantation genetic testing.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 301,465 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology between 2014 and 2016. Binomial logistic regression was performed to examine associations between state-mandated insurance coverage and preimplantation genetic testing use. The neonate's sex from each patient's first successful cycle was used to calculate sex ratios. Sex ratios then were compared by state mandates and preimplantation genetic testing indication for elective sex selection.

RESULTS

The proportion of IVF cycles using preimplantation genetic testing increased from 17% in 2014 to 34% in 2016. This increase was driven largely by preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy testing. Preimplantation genetic testing was less likely to be performed in states with mandates for insurance coverage than in those without mandates (risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.71, P<.001). Preimplantation genetic testing use for elective sex selection was also less likely to be performed in states with mandates (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.53, P<.001). Among liveborn neonates, the male/female sex ratio was higher for IVF cycles with preimplantation genetic testing for any indication (115) than for those without preimplantation genetic testing (105) (P<.001), and the use of preimplantation genetic testing specifically for elective sex selection had a substantially higher (164) male/female sex ratio than preimplantation genetic testing for other indications (112) (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of IVF cycles using preimplantation genetic testing in the United States is increasing and is highest in states where IVF is largely self-funded. Preimplantation genetic testing for nonmedical sex selection is also more common in states where IVF is self-funded and is more likely to result in male offspring. Continued surveillance of these trends is important, because these practices are controversial and could have implications for future population demographics.

Limitations and barriers in access to care for male factor infertility

The primary challenge to identifying and addressing barriers in access to care for male factor infertility is accurate measurement of the prevalence of male infertility. Current estimates are based on couples pursuing assisted reproduction, and likely underestimate the problem. These estimates also fail to account for the number of patients facing infertility due to cancer or cancer treatment. Lack of health insurance coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility presents a major barrier for couples struggling with infertility. However, it is not the only barrier. Education level, household income, cultural norms, religious beliefs, geographic location, and the availability of specialty-trained reproductive urologists are all important factors in determining the ease with which patients access and obtain infertility care. Addressing each of these obstacles directly is imperative to improving reproductive care and outcomes for infertile couples in the United States.