Who should bear the cost of IVF? In search of a just solution

A cost per live birth comparison of HMG and rFSH randomized trials

To help inform healthcare treatment practices and funding decisions, an economic evaluation was conducted to compare the two leading gonadotrophins used for IVF in Belgium. Based on the results of a recently published meta-analysis, a simulated decision tree model was constructed with four states: (i) fresh cycle, (ii) cryopreserved cycle, (iii) live birth and (iv) treatment withdrawal. Gonadotrophin costs were based on highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin (HP-HMG; Menopur) and recombinant FSH (rFSH) alpha (Gonal-F). After one fresh and one cryopreserved cycle the average treatment cost with HP-HMG was lower than with rFSH (HP-HMG euro3635; rFSH euro4103). The average cost saving per person started on HP-HMG when compared with rFSH was euro468. Additionally, the average costs per live birth of HP-HMG and rFSH were found to be significantly different: HP-HMG euro9996; rFSH euro13,009 (P < 0.0001). HP-HMG remained cost-saving even after key parameters in the model were varied in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Treatment with HP-HMG was found to be the dominant treatment strategy in IVF because of improved live birth rates and lower costs. Within a fixed healthcare budget, the cost-savings achieved using HP-HMG would allow for the delivery of additional IVF cycles.

Public financing of IVF: a review of policy rationales

There is great diversity in in vitro fertilization (IVF) funding and reimbursement policies and practice throughout Europe and the rest of the world. While many existing reimbursement and regulatory frameworks address safety and legal concerns, economic factors also assume a central role. However, there are several problems with the evidence that is available on the economics of IVF. This suggests there is a need for more robust cost-effectiveness studies. It also indicates the need for alternative rationales to justify the reimbursement of IVF, which might more fully account for the social, political, ethical, and philosophical considerations embedded in notions of infertility and technology-driven reproductive treatments. The merits and limitations of five alternative rationales are discussed. The review suggests that while no existing single rationale provides a complete framework with which to support funding decisions, taken together they provide guideposts which signal important issues for consideration and highlight where further research, action, and debate are needed.

The problem of IVF cost in developing countries: has natural cycle IVF a place?

Infertility represents a national health problem in some African countries. Limited financial health resources in developing countries are a major obstacle facing infertility management. IVF is the definitive line of treatment for many couples. Stimulation cycles are associated with risks of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancy. This study evaluates the client acceptability of stimulated versus natural cycle IVF among couples attending one infertility clinic, with respect to cost and pregnancy outcome. Of the patients who were indicated for IVF, 15% (16/107) cancelled, due mostly (12/16, 75%) to financial reasons. The majority of patients who completed their IVF treatment (82/91, 90.1%) felt the price of the medical service offered was high, and 68.1% (62/91) accepted the idea of having cheaper drugs with fewer side effects but with possibly lower chances of pregnancy. Natural cycle IVF has emerged as a potential option that might be suitable for patients worldwide, especially in developing countries.