Multifetal Pregnancy After Implementation of a Publicly Funded Fertility Program.

Importance: A publicly funded fertility program was introduced in Ontario, Canada, in 2015 to increase access to fertility treatment. For in vitro fertilization (IVF), the program mandated an elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) policy. However, ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination (OI/IUI)-2 other common forms of fertility treatment-were more difficult to regulate in this manner. Furthermore, prior epidemiologic studies only assessed fetuses at birth and did not account for potential fetal reductions that may have been performed earlier in pregnancy. Objective: To examine the association between fertility treatment and the risk of multifetal pregnancy in a publicly funded fertility program, accounting for both fetal reductions and all live births and stillbirths. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study used linked administrative health databases at ICES to examine all births and fetal reductions in Ontario, Canada, from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2021. Exposure: Mode of conception: (1) unassisted conception, (2) OI/IUI, or (3) IVF. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was multifetal pregnancy (ie, a twin or higher-order pregnancy). Modified Poisson regression generated adjusted relative risks (ARRs) and derived population attributable fractions (PAFs) for multifetal pregnancies attributable to fertility treatment. Absolute rate differences (ARDs) were used to compare the era before eSET was promoted (2006-2011) with the era after the introduction of the eSET mandate (2016-2021). Results: Of all 1 724 899 pregnancies, 1 670 825 (96.9%) were by unassisted conception (mean [SD] maternal age, 30.6 [5.2] years), 24 395 (1.4%) by OI/IUI (mean [SD] maternal age, 33.1 [4.4] years), and 29 679 (1.7%) by IVF (mean [SD] maternal age, 35.8 [4.7] years). In contrast to unassisted conception, individuals who received OI/IUI or IVF tended to be older, reside in a high-income quintile neighborhood, or have preexisting health conditions. Multifetal pregnancy rates were 1.4% (95% CI, 1.4%-1.4%) for unassisted conception, 10.5% (95% CI, 10.2%-10.9%) after OI/IUI, and 15.5% (95% CI, 15.1%-15.9%) after IVF. Compared with unassisted conception, the ARR of any multifetal pregnancy was 7.0 (95% CI, 6.7-7.3) after OI/IUI and 9.9 (95% CI, 9.6-10.3) after IVF, with corresponding PAFs of 7.1% (95% CI, 7.1%-7.2%) and 13.4% (95% CI, 13.3%-13.4%). Between the eras of 2006 to 2011 and 2016 to 2021, multifetal pregnancy rates decreased from 12.9% to 9.1% with OI/IUI (ARD, -3.8%; 95% CI, -4.2% to -3.4%) and from 29.4% to 7.1% with IVF (ARD, -22.3%; 95% CI, -23.2% to -21.6%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of more than 1.7 million pregnancies in Ontario, Canada, a publicly funded IVF program mandating an eSET policy was associated with a reduction in multifetal pregnancy rates. Nevertheless, ongoing strategies are needed to decrease multifetal pregnancy, especially in those undergoing OI/IUI.

Economic evaluations of assisted reproductive technologies in high-income countries: a systematic review.

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.

Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review.

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.

Financial ''risk-sharing'' or refund programs in assisted reproduction: an Ethics Committee opinion.

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.

Model-based estimation of the health care expenditure and out-of-pocket payment for assisted reproductive technology: A retrospective linkage study using the Japanese national ART registry.

AIM: From April 2022, the Japanese government funding system for assisted reproductive technology (ART) has shifted from government subsidies to universal health insurance. To date, studies estimating the health care expenditure for ART are scarce. We estimated health care expenditures for ART cycles and compared the proportion of patients' out-of-pocket payment by ovarian stimulation protocols under the Japanese government subsidy system. METHODS: We linked payment information for government subsidies in Saitama Prefecture during 2016 and 2017 with the Japanese ART registry. Health care expenditures for all treatment cycles in Japan during 2017 among women aged <43 years (n = 369 757) were estimated using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: We linked 6269 subsidy applications to the Japanese ART registry. The average treatment fee for a fresh cycle was 376 434 JPY (standard deviation = 159 581). However, significant variation was observed across ovarian stimulation protocols. The estimated health care expenditure for ART during 2017 was 101 278 629 888 JPY (920 714 817 USD), leading to a 0.24% increase in the national health care expenditure for fiscal year 2017. Fresh cycles accounted for 70% of the expenditure. The proportion of the average patient out-of-pocket payment for one treatment cycle was smaller for natural (0%) and mild ovarian stimulation using clomiphene citrate (4.5%-20.7%) than those of conventional stimulation (30.3%-32.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health insurance coverage for ART would increase national health care expenditure by 0.24%. Under the subsidy system, the proportion of the average patient out-of-pocket payment was smaller for natural and mild ovarian stimulation than conventional stimulations.

The Long Road to Parenthood: Assisted Reproduction, Surrogacy, and Adoption Among US Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize demographics, costs, and workplace support for surgeons using assisted reproductive technology (ART), adoption, and surrogacy to build their families. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: As the surgical workforce diversifies, the needs of surgeons building a family are changing. ART, adoption, and surrogacy may be used with greater frequency among female surgeons who delay childbearing and surgeons in same-sex relationships. Little is known about costs and workplace support for these endeavors. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to surgeons through surgical societies and social media. Rates of ART use were compared between partners of male surgeons and female surgeons and multivariate analysis used to assess risk factors. Surgeons using ART, adoption, or surrogacy were asked to describe costs and time off work to pursue these options. RESULTS: Eight hundred and fifty-nine surgeons participated. Compared to male surgeons, female surgeons were more likely to report delaying children due to surgical training (64.9% vs. 43.5%, P < 0.001), have fewer children (1.9 vs. 2.4, p < 0.001), and use ART (25.2% vs. 17.4%, P = 0.035). Compared to non-surgeon partners of male surgeons, female surgeons were older at first pregnancy (33 vs 31 years, P < 0.001) with age > 35 years associated with greater odds of ART use (odds ratio 3.90; 95% confidence interval 2.74-5.55, P < 0.001). One-third of surgeons using ART spent >$40,000; most took minimal time off work for treatments. Forty-five percent of same-sex couples used adoption or surrogacy. 60% of surgeons using adoption or surrogacy spent >$40,000 and most took minimal paid parental leave. CONCLUSIONS: ART, adoption, or surrogacy is costly and lacks strong workplace support in surgery, disproportionately impacting women and same-sex couples. Equitable and inclusive environments supporting all routes to parenthood ensure recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce. Surgical leaders must enact policies and practices to normalize childbearing as part of an early surgical career, including financial support and equitable parental leave for a growing group of surgeons pursuing ART, surrogacy, or adoption to become parents.

Differences in ICSI utilization rates among states with insurance mandates for ART coverage.

BACKGROUND: Assisted reproductive technology (ART) insurance mandates promote more selective utilization of ART clinic resources including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Our objective was to examine whether ICSI utilization differs by state insurance mandates for ART coverage and assess if such a difference is associated with male factor, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), and/or live birth rates. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data from 2018, ART clinics in ART-mandated states (n = 8, AR, CT, HI, IL, MD, MA, NJ, RI) were compared individually to one another and with non-mandated states in aggregate (n = 42) for use of ICSI, male factor, PGT, and live birth rates. ANOVA was used to evaluate differences between ART-mandated states and non-mandated states. Individual ART-mandated states were compared using Welch t-tests. Statistical significance was determined by Bonferroni Correction. RESULTS: There were significant differences in ICSI rates (%, mean ± SD) between MA (53.3 ± 21.3) and HI (90.7 ± 19.6), p = 0.028; IL (86.5 ± 18.7) and MA, p = 0.002; IL and MD (57.2 ± 30.8), p = 0.039; IL and NJ (62.0 ± 26.8), p = 0.007; between non-mandated states in aggregate (79.9 ± 19.9) and MA, p = 0.006, and NJ (62.0 ± 26.8), p = 0.02. Male factor rates of HI (65.8 ± 16.0) were significantly greater compared to CT (18.8 ± 8.7), IL (26.0 ± 11.9), MA (26.9 ± 6.6), MD (29.3 ± 9.9), NJ (30.6 ± 17.9), and non-mandated states in aggregate (29.7 ± 13.7), all p < 0.0001. No significant differences were reported for use of PGT and/or live birth rates across all age groups regardless of mandate status. CONCLUSIONS: ICSI use varied significantly among ART-mandated states while demonstrating no differences in live birth rates. These data suggest that the prevalence of male factor and the presence of a state insurance mandate are not the only factors influencing ICSI use. It is suggested that other non-clinical factors may impact the rate of ICSI utilization in a given state.

Restricted access to assisted reproductive technology and fertility preservation: legal and ethical issues.

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'.

Innovations in infertility: a comprehensive analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

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.

Unmet financial burden of infertility care and the impact of state insurance mandates in the United States: analysis from a popular crowdfunding platform.

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.

Artificial intelligence-the future is now.

The pros and cons of artificial intelligence in assisted reproductive technology are presented.

Disparities in access to effective treatment for infertility in the United States: an Ethics Committee opinion.

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.

"Add-Ons" for Assisted Reproductive Technology: Do Patients Get Honest Information from Fertility Clinics' Websites?

"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.

2008 financial crisis versus 2020 economic fallout: how COVID-19 might influence fertility treatment and live births.

RESEARCH QUESTION: The economic and reproductive medicine response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the USA has reduced the affordability and accessibility of fertility care. What is the impact of the 2008 financial recession and the COVID-19 recession on fertility treatments and cumulative live births? DESIGN: The study examined annual US natality, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention IVF cycle activity and live birth data from 1999 to 2018 encompassing 3,286,349 treatment cycles, to estimate the age-stratified reduction in IVF cycles undertaken after the 2008 financial recession, with forward quantitative modelling of IVF cycle activity and cumulative live births for 2020 to 2023. RESULTS: The financial recession of 2008 caused a 4-year plateau in fertility treatments with a predicted 53,026 (95% confidence interval [CI] 49,581 to 56,471) fewer IVF cycles and 16,872 (95% CI 16,713 to 17,031) fewer live births. A similar scale of economic recession would cause 67,386 (95% CI 61,686 to 73,086) fewer IVF cycles between 2020 and 2023, with women younger than 35 years overall undertaking 22,504 (95% CI 14,320 to 30,690) fewer cycles, compared with 4445 (95% CI 3144 to 5749) fewer cycles in women over the age of 40 years. This equates to overall 25,143 (95% CI 22,408 to 27,877) fewer predicted live births from IVF, of which only 490 (95% CI 381 to 601) are anticipated to occur in women over the age of 40 years. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 recession could have a profound impact on US IVF live birth rates in young women, further aggravating pre-existing declines in total fertility rates.

"The Back-up Vasectomy Reversal." Simultaneous Sperm Retrieval and Vasectomy Reversal in the Couple With Advanced Maternal Age: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of different fertility options in men who have undergone vasectomy in couples with a female of advanced maternal age (AMA). The options include vasectomy reversal (VR), sperm retrieval (SR) with in vitro fertilization (IVF), and the combination of VR and SR with IVF, which is a treatment pathway that has been understudied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using TreeAge software, a model-based cost-utility analysis was performed estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in couples with infertility due to vasectomy and advanced female age over a period of one year. The model stratified for female age (35-37, 38-40, >40) and evaluated four strategies: VR followed by natural conception (NC), SR with IVF, VR and SR followed by failed NC and then IVF, and VR and SR followed by failed IVF and then NC. QALY estimates and outcome probabilities were obtained from the literature and average patient charges were calculated from high-volume centers. RESULTS: The most cost-effective fertility strategy was to undergo VR and try for NC (cost-per-QALY: $7,150 (35-37 y), $7,203 (38-40 y), and $7,367 (>40 y)). The second most cost-effective strategy was the "back-up vasectomy reversal": undergo VR and SR, attempt IVF and switch to NC if IVF fails. CONCLUSION: In couples with a history of vasectomy and female of AMA, it is most cost-effective to undergo a VR. If the couple opts for SR for IVF, it is more cost-effective to undergo a concomitant VR than SR alone.

Cost-effectiveness of freeze-all policy - A retrospective study based upon the outcome of cumulative live births.

OBJECT: We have previously reported that cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) are higher in the freeze-all group compared with controls (64.3% vs. 45.8%, p = 0.001). Here, we aim to determine if the freeze-all policy is more cost-effective than fresh embryo transfer followed by frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis consisted of 704 ART (Assisted reproductive technology) cycles, which included in IVF (In vitro fertilisation) and ICSI (Intra Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection) cycles performed in Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan between January 2012 and June 2014. The freeze-all group involved 84 patients and the fresh Group 625 patients. Patients were followed up until all embryos obtained from a single controlled ovarian hyper-stimulation cycle were used up, or a live birth had been achieved. The total cost related to treatment of each patient was recorded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was based on the incremental cost per couple and the incremental live birth rate of the freeze-all strategy compared with the fresh ET strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) were performed. RESULTS: The total treatment cost per patient was significantly higher for the freeze-all group than in the fresh group (USD 3419.93 ± 638.13 vs. $2920.59 ± 711.08 p < 0.001). However, the total treatment cost per live birth in the freeze-all group was US $5319.89, vs. US $6382.42 in the fresh group. CEAC show that the freeze-all policy was a cost-effective treatment at a threshold of US $2703.57 for one additional live birth. Considering the Willingness-to-pay threshold per live birth, the probability was 60.1% at the threshold of US $2896.5, with the freeze-all group being more cost-effective than the fresh-ET group; or 90.1% at the threshold of $4183.8. CONCLUSION: The freeze-all policy is a cost-effective treatment, as long as the additional cost of US $2703.57 per additional live birth is financially acceptable for the subjects.

Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology advertising guidelines: How are member clinics doing?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) member in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers adhere to the Society's new advertising policy, updated in January 2018, and evaluate other services advertised by region, insurance mandate and university affiliation status. Historically, a large percentage of IVF clinics have not adhered to SART guidelines for IVF clinic website advertising and have had variability in how financial incentives and other noncore fertility services are advertised. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Adherence of SART participating websites to objective criteria from the 2018 SART advertising guidelines. RESULT(S): All 361 SART participating clinic websites were evaluated. Approximately one third of clinics reported success rate statistics directly on their websites, but only 52.6% of those clinics reported current statistics. Similarly, only 67.5% of SART member clinics included the required disclaimer statement regarding their outcome statistics. Only 10.5% of websites were wholly compliant with SART guidelines regarding presentation of supplemental data. There were no significant differences between academic and nonacademic centers, programs in mandated versus nonmandated states, or East versus West Coast clinics in any of these areas. CONCLUSION(S): Many of the SART member websites failed to adhere to core guidelines surrounding reporting IVF clinic success rates. Consideration for additional education and streamlining as well as simplifying success rate advertising guidelines is recommended.

Business law issues for assisted reproductive technology practices and practitioners: considerations for sales or mergers of fertility practices.

To succeed in the assisted reproductive technology industry, physician owners of fertility practices have to develop a wide array of business skills and expertise. In today's business world, a natural next step for many assisted reproductive practices is exploring potential mergers, sales, or acquisitions. This article will explore what factors physician owners of fertility practices should consider before pursuing a potential sale or merger; how to prepare for such a transaction; and what to expect once a transaction is underway.

Funding and public reporting strategies for reducing multiple pregnancy from fertility treatments.

The health of children born through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) is particularly vulnerable to policy decisions and market forces that play out before they are even conceived. ART treatment is costly, and public and third-party funding varies significantly between and within countries, leading to considerable variation in consumer affordability globally. These relative cost differences affect not only who can afford to access ART treatment, but also how ART is practiced in terms of embryo transfer practices, with less affordable treatment creating a financial incentive to transfer more than one embryo to maximize the pregnancy rates in fewer cycles. One mechanism for reducing the burden of excessive multiple pregnancies is to link insurance coverage to the number of embryos that can be transferred; another is to combine supportive funding with patient and clinician education and public reporting that emphasizes a "complete" ART cycle (all embryo transfers associated with an egg retrieval) and penalizes multiple embryo transfers. Improving funding for fertility services in a way that respects clinician and patient autonomy and allows patients to undertake a sufficient number of cycles to minimize moral hazard improves outcomes for mothers and babies while reducing the long-term economic burden associated with fertility treatments.