State insurance mandates and racial and ethnic inequities in assisted reproductive technology utilization.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the (1) scope of state-mandated insurance coverage for assisted reproductive technology (ART) and (2) proportion of the population eligible for this coverage are associated with reductions in racial/ethnic inequities in ART utilization. DESIGN: National cross-sectional, ecologic study. SUBJECTS: We employed estimates from the US Census Bureau of all women 20-44 years of age living in the US in 2018. Data on the number of women who initiated an ART cycle during that year that were reported to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were obtained from the National ART Surveillance System. EXPOSURE: State mandates were classified according to the scope of required coverage for fertility services: Comprehensive, Limited, and No Mandate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Race and ethnic-specific ART utilization rates, defined as the number of women undergoing ≥1 ART cycles per 10,000 women, were the primary outcomes. As state mandates do not apply to all insurance plans, Comprehensive Mandate utilization rates were recalculated using denominators corrected for the estimated proportions of populations eligible for coverage. RESULTS: Across all mandate categories, Non-Hispanic (NH) Asian and NH White populations had the highest ART utilization rates, whereas the lowest rates were among Hispanic, NH Black, and NH Other/Multiple Races populations. Compared with the NH Asian reference group, the NH Black population had smaller inequities in the Comprehensive Mandate group than the No Mandate group (rate ratio [RR 0.33 [0.28-0.38] vs. RR 0.23 [0.22-0.24]). Using the Comprehensive Mandate group for each race/ethnicity as the reference, the NH Black and NH Other/Multiple Races populations showed the largest relative differences in utilization between the No Mandate and Comprehensive Mandate groups (RR 0.39 [0.37-0.41] and 0.33 [0.28-0.38], respectively). Within the Comprehensive Mandate group, the disparities in the Hispanic and NH Black populations moved toward the null after correcting for state-mandated insurance eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic inequities in ART utilization were reduced in states with comprehensive infertility coverage mandates. Inequities were further attenuated after correcting for mandate eligibility. Mandates alone, however, were not sufficient to eliminate disparities. These findings can inform future strategies aimed at improving ART access under a social justice framework.

Macroprolactinemia: a mini-review and update on clinical practice.

Hyperprolactinemia is common among infertile patients, with up to 15%-20% of women with oligomenorrhea having hyperprolactinemia. Suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis via inhibition of pulsatile gonadotropin releasing hormone because of hyperprolactinemia is a common endocrine etiology of infertility. There are 3 forms of human prolactin (PRL): monomeric PRL, dimeric PRL, and macro-PRL. Also known as big-big PRL, macro-PRL has a molecular weight >150 kDa and normally comprises 5%-10% of circulating PRL. When the predominant form of circulating PRL is macro-PRL, macroprolactinemia is diagnosed. Among patients with hyperprolactinemia, 10%-46% have macroprolactinemia. Patients with macroprolactinemia are at risk of unnecessary pituitary imaging and treatment with dopamine agonists if not correctly diagnosed. Given the high prevalence of macroprolactinemia among patients with elevated PRL levels and the different management of patients with macroprolactinemia vs true monomeric hyperprolactinemia, all patients with persistently elevated PRL levels should be screened for macro-PRL.

The Massachusetts Infertility Insurance Mandate: not nearly enough.

Objective: To assess the impact of statutory federal and state exceptions to the state law mandating insurance coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Design: Population-based cross-sectional study comprised of reproductive-age women (defined herein as 20-44 years of age) who resided in Massachusetts during the 2016-2019 interval. Statutory exemptions to the benefits afforded by the Massachusetts Infertility Insurance Mandate were identified in the Massachusetts General Laws as well as in the United States Code. Setting: Not applicable. Patients: Publicly available, deidentified, population-level data pertaining to state-based reproductive-age women (aged 20-44 years) were procured for the 2016-2019 interval. Data sources included the Massachusetts Census Bureau, Massachusetts Center for Health Information and Analysis, US Department of Defense, and US Office of Personnel Management. Interventions: None. Main Outcome Measures: The proportion of state-based reproductive-age women who constitute beneficiaries of the Massachusetts Infertility Insurance Mandate after accounting for the applicable state and federal statutory exemptions that limit its impact. Results: Public health plans (Medicare, MassHealth [state Medicaid], TRICARE, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) are exempted from the Massachusetts Infertility Insurance Mandate by dint of federal or state statute. Self-insured employer-sponsored health plans are exempted from the Massachusetts Infertility Insurance Mandate by dint of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It follows that only 26.2%-36.0% of state-based reproductive-age women comprised eligible beneficiaries of the Massachusetts Infertility Insurance Mandate over the 2016-2019 interval. Conclusions: Contrary to commonly held views, multiple statutory exemptions to the Massachusetts Infertility Insurance Mandate render a significant proportion of state-based reproductive-age women ineligible for its cognate benefits. We propose herein that the Essential Health Benefit categories of the Affordable Care Act be expanded by the US Congress to include infertility care services.

Evaluation and Management of Infertility for Patients Without Insurance Coverage.

Infertility is a common condition which causes substantial patient distress and prompts patients to seek care in outpatient gynecologic offices. The evaluation and treatment of infertility can be costly and insurance coverage for these services varies widely. Obstetrician-gynecologists and other women's health care professionals often struggle with the approach for patients without insurance coverage for infertility care. This article reviews the status of insurance coverage for infertility services, reviews options for both the evaluation and management of infertility for patients who do not have infertility insurance coverage, and provides resources for ongoing advocacy and support for these patients.

Long-term reproductive outcomes in patients with unexplained infertility: follow-up of the Fast Track and Standard Treatment Trial participants.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term reproductive outcomes in couples who were enrolled in a large randomized controlled trial that studied optimal treatment for unexplained infertility. DESIGN: Telephone survey, administered between March 2019 and February 2020. SETTING: Large urban university-affiliated fertility center. PATIENT(S): Couples who enrolled in the Fast Track and Standard Treatment Trial (FASTT). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Number of live births, methods of conception, adoption, and satisfaction regarding family size. RESULT(S): Of the 503 couples enrolled in FASTT, 311 (61.8%) were contacted and 286 (56.9%) consented to participate. The mean age and follicle-stimulating hormone level at the time of enrollment in FASTT were 33.1 ± 3.2 years and 6.8 ± 2.2 mIU/mL, respectively, for those who participated in this study. The mean age at follow-up was 49.5 ± 3.4 years. Of the 286 women, 194 (67.8%) had a live birth during the trial and 225 (78.7%) continued to try to conceive after FASTT. Of those who tried to conceive without treatment, 101 of 157 (64.3%) had a successful live birth, whereas 12 (5.3%) women had a live birth via intrauterine insemination and 82 (36.4%) via autologous oocyte in vitro fertilization. Overall, 182 (80.9%) women achieved a live birth after FASTT. CONCLUSION(S): The majority of couples were able to achieve a live birth after FASTT. Only 19 (6.6%) never achieved a live birth during their reproductive years. Moving to treatment sooner allows the opportunity to achieve >1 live birth, which is associated with increased satisfaction regarding family size. This further supports access to care and insurance coverage for infertility treatment.

Hepatitis C virus screening in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the incidence of acute hepatitis C virus infection was 1.0 per 100,000 persons in the United States and 6.2 per 100,000 persons in Massachusetts. Hepatitis C virus infection among pregnant women in the United States increased by 89% from 2009 to 2014. The risk of a mother with hepatitis C virus infection transmitting the infection to her infant is approximately 4% to 7%. The Infectious Disease Society of America and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recommend universal hepatitis C virus screening in pregnancy, whereas the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommend risk-based screening. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this quality improvement project was to assess the hepatitis C virus screening practices of obstetricians and gynecologists at a tertiary care center located in a high endemic area for hepatitis C virus infection. STUDY DESIGN: An electronic 10-question survey was reviewed by the Tufts Medical Center Institutional Review Board and found to be exempt from institutional review board approval. The survey was emailed to resident and attending physicians who provide obstetrical care. RESULTS: Of a total of 41 respondents, 38 (92.6%) provided responses; of these 38 respondents, 17 (44.7%) were attending physicians, 4 (10.5%) were fellows, and 17 (44.7%) were resident physicians. In addition, 16 of 37 (43.2%) respondents answered that all pregnant women should be screened for hepatitis C virus, whereas 20 of 37 (54.1%) respondents thought only pregnant women with risk factors for hepatitis C virus infection should be screened. Furthermore, only 13 of 31 (41.9%) respondents correctly identified all of the recommended risk factors that should prompt screening for hepatitis C virus. When asked about their clinical practice, 5 of 36 (13.9%) respondents indicated that they screen all pregnant patients, whereas 28 of 36 (77.8%) respondents indicated that they screen patients based on their risk factors for hepatitis C virus infection. CONCLUSION: Our survey showed that risk-based screening for hepatitis C virus may be less effective than universal screening because healthcare providers are not consistent in identifying risk factors for hepatitis C virus infection. Universal screening could decrease the amount of hepatitis C virus infections that go undiagnosed in pregnancy.