Care Delivery for Male Infertility: The Present and Future.

Although infertility is now recognized as a disease by multiple organizations including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, private insurance companies rarely include coverage for infertility treatments. In this review, the authors assess the current state of care delivery for male infertility care in the United States. They discuss the scope of male infertility as well as the unique burdens it places on patients and review emerging market forces that could affect the future of care delivery for male infertility.

Evaluation, Treatment, and Insurance Coverage for Couples With Male Factor Infertility in the US: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Survey Data.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the evaluation, treatment, and insurance coverage among couples with male factor infertility in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 969 couples undergoing fertility treatment with a diagnosis of male factor infertility were identified from an online survey. The proportion of men that were seen/not seen by a male were compared. Insurance coverage related to male factor was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 98.0% of the men reported at least one abnormal semen parameter. Of these, 72.0% were referred to a male fertility specialist with the majority being referred by the gynecologist of their female partner. As part of the male evaluation, 72.2% had blood hormone testing. Of the 248 men who were not recommended to see a male fertility specialist, 96.0% had an abnormal semen analysis including 7.6% who had azoospermia. Referral to a male fertility specialist was largely driven by severity of male factor infertility rather than socioeconomic status. Insurance coverage related to male factor infertility was poor with low coverage for sperm extractions (72.9% reported 0-25% coverage) and sperm freezing (83.7% reported 0-25% coverage). CONCLUSION: Although this cohort includes couples with abnormal semen parameters, 28% of the men were not evaluated by a male fertility specialist. In addition, insurance coverage for services related to male factor was low. These findings may be of concern as insufficient evaluation and coverage of the infertile man could lead to missed opportunities for identifying reversible causes of infertility/medical comorbidities and places an unfair burden on the female partner.

Disease burden attributable to endocrine-disrupting chemicals exposure in China: A case study of phthalates.

While it has been acknowledged that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is associated with human diseases, the overall disease burden attributable to the exposure to a specific EDC has rarely been evaluated. Based on existing models for assessing probabilities of causation and a comprehensive review of available data, we analyzed the burden of three diseases, i.e., male infertility, adult obesity, and diabetes, among the general Chinese population resulting from exposure to phthalates. Our estimation indicates that exposure to phthalates is associated with ~2.50 million cases of the three diseases across China in 2010, causing ~57.2 billion Chinese Yuan (equivalent to ~9 billion US dollars) of health care costs in a year. Male infertility has the largest number of cases, followed by adult obesity and diabetes. Based on these phthalate-specific estimates, we further estimated that the total disease cost due to exposure to the overall EDCs amounted to ~429.43 billion Chinese Yuan in China in 2010, accounting for 1.07% of nationwide gross domestic product (GDP). When comparing our results with an earlier estimate for the European Union (EU) member countries, we find that exposure to phthalates leads to quite a similar disease burden per unit of GDP in both regions. Our study illustrates the considerable socio-economic impact of EDC exposure on human society, implying the imperative need for global risk reduction actions on EDCs, especially in view of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection use in states with and without insurance coverage mandates for infertility treatment, United States, 2000-2015.

OBJECTIVE: To compare indications and trends in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) use for in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles among residents of states with and without insurance mandates for IVF coverage. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System from 2011 to 2015 for the main outcome and from 2000 to 2015 for trends. SETTING: IVF cycles performed in U.S. fertility clinics. PATIENT(S): Fresh IVF cycles. INTERVENTION(S): Residency in a state with an insurance mandate for IVF (n = 8 states) versus no mandate (n = 43 states, including DC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): ICSI use by insurance coverage mandate status stratified by male-factor infertility diagnosis. RESULT(S): During 2000-2015, there were 1,356,377 fresh IVF cycles, of which 25.8% (n = 350,344) were performed for residents of states with an insurance coverage mandate for IVF. ICSI use increased significantly during 2000-2015 in states both with and without a mandate; however, for non-male-factor infertility cycles, the percentage increase in ICSI use was greater among nonmandate states (34.6% in 2000 to 73.9% in 2015) versus mandate states (39.5% in 2000 to 63.5% in 2015). For male-factor infertility cycles, this percentage increase was ∼7.3% regardless of residency in a state with an insurance mandate for IVF. From 2011 to 2015, ICSI use was lower in mandate versus nonmandate states, both for cycles with (91.5% vs. 94.5%), and without (60.3% vs. 70.9%) male-factor infertility. CONCLUSION(S): Mandates for IVF coverage were associated with lower ICSI use for non-male-factor infertility cycles.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lifestyle intervention in obese infertile women.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment in obese infertile women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment as compared to prompt infertility treatment in obese infertile women is not a cost-effective strategy in terms of healthy live birth rate within 24 months after randomization, but is more likely to be cost-effective using a longer follow-up period and live birth rate as endpoint. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In infertile couples, obesity decreases conception chances. We previously showed that lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment in obese infertile women did not increase the healthy singleton vaginal live birth rate at term, but increased natural conceptions, especially in anovulatory women. Cost-effectiveness analyses could provide relevant additional information to guide decisions regarding offering a lifestyle intervention to obese infertile women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment compared to prompt infertility treatment was evaluated based on data of a previous RCT, the LIFEstyle study. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization (the healthy live birth rate). The economic evaluation was performed from a hospital perspective and included direct medical costs of the lifestyle intervention, infertility treatments, medication and pregnancy in the intervention and control group. In addition, we performed exploratory cost-effectiveness analyses of scenarios with additional effectiveness outcomes (overall live birth within 24 months and overall live birth conceived within 24 months) and of subgroups, i.e. of ovulatory and anovulatory women, women <36 years and ≥36 years of age and of completers of the lifestyle intervention. Bootstrap analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Infertile women with a BMI of ≥29 kg/m2 (no upper limit) were allocated to a 6-month lifestyle intervention programme preceding infertility treatment (intervention group, n = 290) or to prompt infertility treatment (control group, n = 287). After excluding women who withdrew informed consent or who were lost to follow-up we included 280 women in the intervention group and 284 women in the control group in the analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Total mean costs per woman in the intervention group within 24 months after randomization were €4324 (SD €4276) versus €5603 (SD €4632) in the control group (cost difference of -€1278, P < 0.05). Healthy live birth rates were 27 and 35% in the intervention group and the control group, respectively (effect difference of -8.1%, P < 0.05), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €15 845 per additional percentage increase of the healthy live birth rate. Mean costs per healthy live birth event were €15 932 in the intervention group and €15 912 in the control group. Exploratory scenario analyses showed that after changing the effectiveness outcome to all live births conceived within 24 months, irrespective of delivery within or after 24 months, cost-effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention improved. Using this effectiveness outcome, the probability that lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment was cost-effective in anovulatory women was 40%, in completers of the lifestyle intervention 39%, and in women ≥36 years 29%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: In contrast to the study protocol, we were not able to perform the analysis from a societal perspective. Besides the primary outcome of the LIFEstyle study, we performed exploratory analyses using outcomes observed at longer follow-up times and we evaluated subgroups of women; the trial was not powered on these additional outcomes or subgroup analyses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention is more likely for longer follow-up times, and with live births conceived within 24 months as the effectiveness outcome. This effect was most profound in anovulatory women, in completers of the lifestyle intervention and in women ≥36 years old. This result indicates that the follow-up period of lifestyle interventions in obese infertile women is important. The scenario analyses performed in this study suggest that offering and reimbursing lifestyle intervention programmes in certain patient categories may be cost-effective and it provides directions for future research in this field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The department of obstetrics and gynaecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. B.W.J.M. is a consultant for ObsEva, Geneva. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The LIFEstyle RCT was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530). http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC = 1530.

Inequity between male and female coverage in state infertility laws.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze state insurance laws mandating coverage for male factor infertility and identify possible inequities between male and female coverage in state insurance laws. DESIGN: We identified states with laws or codes related to infertility insurance coverage using the National Conference of States Legislatures' and the National Infertility Association's websites. We performed a primary, systematic analysis of the laws or codes to specifically identify coverage for male factor infertility services. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Not applicable. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The presence or absence of language in state insurance laws mandating coverage for male factor infertility care. RESULT(S): There are 15 states with laws mandating insurance coverage for female factor infertility. Only eight of those states (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia) have mandates for male factor infertility evaluation or treatment. Insurance coverage for male factor infertility is most specific in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, yet significant differences exist in the male factor policies in all eight states. Three states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York) exempt coverage for vasectomy reversal. CONCLUSION(S): Despite national recommendations that male and female partners begin infertility evaluations together, only 8 of 15 states with laws mandating infertility coverage include coverage for the male partner. Excluding men from infertility coverage places an undue burden on female partners and risks missing opportunities to diagnose serious male health conditions, correct reversible causes of infertility, and provide cost-effective treatments that can downgrade the intensity of intervention required to achieve a pregnancy.

Cost-effectiveness of assisted conception for male subfertility.

Intrauterine insemination (IUI), with or without ovarian stimulation, IVF and intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used treatments for couples with male subfertility. No consensus has been reached on specific cut-off values for semen parameters, at which IVF would be advocated over IUI and ICSI over IVF. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for male subfertility according to total motile sperm count (TMSC). A computer-simulated cohort of subfertile women aged 30 years with a partner was analysed with a pre-wash TMSC of 0 to 10 million. Three treatments were evaluated: IUI with and without controlled ovarian stimulation; IVF; and ICSI. Main outcome was expected live birth; secondary outcomes were cost per couple and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The choice of IVF over IUI with ovarian stimulation and ICSI over IVF depends on the willingness to pay for an extra live birth. If only cost per live birth is considered for each treatment, above a pre-wash TMSC of 3 million, IUI is less costly than IVF and, below a pre-wash, TMSC of 3 million ICSI is less costly. Effectiveness needs to be confirmed in a large randomized controlled trial.

Male reproductive disorders, diseases, and costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing evidence suggests that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) contribute to male reproductive diseases and disorders. PURPOSE: To estimate the incidence/prevalence of selected male reproductive disorders/diseases and associated economic costs that can be reasonably attributed to specific EDC exposures in the European Union (EU). METHODS: An expert panel evaluated evidence for probability of causation using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change weight-of-evidence characterization. Exposure-response relationships and reference levels were evaluated, and biomarker data were organized from carefully identified studies from the peer-reviewed literature to represent European exposure and approximate burden of disease as it occurred in 2010. The cost-of-illness estimation utilized multiple peer-reviewed sources. RESULTS: The expert panel identified low epidemiological and strong toxicological evidence for male infertility attributable to phthalate exposure, with a 40-69% probability of causing 618,000 additional assisted reproductive technology procedures, costing €4.71 billion annually. Low epidemiological and strong toxicological evidence was also identified for cryptorchidism due to prenatal polybrominated diphenyl ether exposure, resulting in a 40-69% probability that 4615 cases result, at a cost of €130 million (sensitivity analysis, €117-130 million). A much more modest (0-19%) probability of causation in testicular cancer by polybrominated diphenyl ethers was identified due to very low epidemiological and weak toxicological evidence, with 6830 potential cases annually and costs of €848 million annually (sensitivity analysis, €313-848 million). The panel assigned 40-69% probability of lower T concentrations in 55- to 64-year-old men due to phthalate exposure, with 24 800 associated deaths annually and lost economic productivity of €7.96 billion. CONCLUSIONS: EDCs may contribute substantially to male reproductive disorders and diseases, with nearly €15 billion annual associated costs in the EU. These estimates represent only a few EDCs for which there were sufficient epidemiological studies and those with the highest probability of causation. These public health costs should be considered as the EU contemplates regulatory action on EDCs.

Infertility care and the introduction of new reproductive technologies in poor resource settings.

BACKGROUND: The overall prevalence of infertility was estimated to be 3.5-16.7% in developing countries and 6.9-9.3% in developed countries. Furthermore, according to reports from some regions of sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence rate is 30-40%. The consequences of infertility and how it affects the lives of women in poor-resource settings, particularly in developing countries, has become an important issue to be discussed in reproductive health. In some societies, the inability to fulfill the desire to have children makes life difficult for the infertile couple. In many regions, infertility is considered a tragedy that affects not only the infertile couple or woman, but the entire family. METHODS: This is a position paper which encompasses a review of the needs of low-income infertile couples, mainly those living in developing countries, regarding access to infertility care, including ART and initiatives to provide ART at low or affordable cost. Information was gathered from the databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and ICTRP with the key words: infertility, low income, assisted reproductive technologies, affordable cost, low cost. RESULTS: There are few initiatives geared toward implementing ART procedures at low cost or at least at affordable cost in low-income populations. Nevertheless, from recent studies, possibilities have emerged for new low-cost initiatives that can help millions of couples to achieve the desire of having a biological child. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary for healthcare professionals and policymakers to take into account these new initiatives in order to implement ART in resource-constrained settings.

Out-of-pocket fertility patient expense: data from a multicenter prospective infertility cohort.

PURPOSE: The high costs of fertility care may deter couples from seeking care. Urologists often are asked about the costs of these treatments. To our knowledge previous studies have not addressed the direct out-of-pocket costs to couples. We characterized these expenses in patients seeking fertility care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Couples were prospectively recruited from 8 community and academic reproductive endocrinology clinics. Each participating couple completed face-to-face or telephone interviews and cost diaries at study enrollment, and 4, 10 and 18 months of care. We determined overall out-of-pocket costs, in addition to relationships between out-of-pocket costs and treatment type, clinical outcomes and socioeconomic characteristics on multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 332 couples completed cost diaries and had data available on treatment and outcomes. Average age was 36.8 and 35.6 years in men and women, respectively. Of this cohort 19% received noncycle based therapy, 4% used ovulation induction medication only, 22% underwent intrauterine insemination and 55% underwent in vitro fertilization. The median overall out-of-pocket expense was $5,338 (IQR 1,197-19,840). Couples using medication only had the lowest median out-of-pocket expenses at $912 while those using in vitro fertilization had the highest at $19,234. After multivariate adjustment the out-of-pocket expense was not significantly associated with successful pregnancy. On multivariate analysis couples treated with in vitro fertilization spent an average of $15,435 more than those treated with intrauterine insemination. Couples spent about $6,955 for each additional in vitro fertilization cycle. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide real-world estimates of out-of-pocket costs, which can be used to help couples plan for expenses that they may incur with treatment.

The economic burden of genetic tests for the infertile male: a pilot algorithm to improve test predictive value.

PURPOSE: We developed a model to optimize genetic testing in infertile men with nonobstructive azoospermia and severe oligospermia. We also assessed the optimal cutoff value of the predicted probability of advising genetic testing and evaluated the direct cost saving of using the model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of infertile men who underwent Y microdeletion and karyotype testing at our fertility center from 2006 to 2012. Semen parameters, testicular volume, testosterone, luteinizing hormone, follicular stimulating hormone and varicocele were assessed as potential predictors of genetic disorders. We fitted logistic regression to all predictors and selected a nomogram based on the concordance index and calibration. We calculated the cost saving of using the model. RESULTS: Of 325 patients 278 fulfilled study inclusion criteria, including 27 with an abnormal karyotype, 11 with a Y microdeletion and 1 with each condition. We developed a nomogram using sperm concentration and motility, testicular volume and serum testosterone level. The nomogram concordance index was 0.738. The optimal cutoff value was 13.8% with 0.788 sensitivity, 0.590 specificity, 0.245 positive predictive value and 0.943 negative predictive value. Testing men above the 13.8% cutoff resulted in a direct 45% cost saving. However, 15.4% of genetic anomalies were missed, including 2 Y microdeletions. CONCLUSIONS: Using common clinical and laboratory parameters our nomogram detects 84.6% of genetic anomalies. Nomogram use resulted in a 45% direct cost saving but carries the risk of missing pertinent genetic abnormalities.

Disparities in obstetrical outcomes in ART pregnancies compared with natural conceptions.

Health disparities are observed in all fields of medicine and reproductive health is not immune to this phenomenon. The incidence of women using infertility treatments to conceive is increasing. Women undergoing assisted reproduction appear to be at increased risk of adverse outcomes, and minority women tend to be at even greater risk. This article examines several adverse obstetrical outcomes including preterm birth, congenital malformations, and preeclampsia among women receiving infertility treatments compared with those who conceive spontaneously. It will further examine societal costs associated with these procedures.

Optimising the management of patients with infertility.

The main causes of infertility are female factor (anovulation, tubal damage, endometriosis and ovarian failure), male factor (low or absent numbers of motile sperm in the ejaculate, and erectile dysfunction), or unexplained infertility. More than 80% of couples will conceive within one year if the woman is aged under 40 and they have regular sexual intercourse. Of those who fail to conceive in the first year, around half will do so in the second year, giving a cumulative pregnancy rate > 90%. A woman of reproductive age who has not conceived after a year of regular sexual intercourse, and has no known cause of infertility, should be offered referral for further clinical assessment and investigation with her partner. Women who have a BMI > or = 30 are likely to take longer to conceive. Those with a BMI < 19 who have irregular or absent menstruation should be advised that putting on weight is likely to improve their chance of conception. The best test of ovulation is an appropriately timed mid-luteal serum progesterone level. Women with irregular or absent menstrual cycles should be offered a blood test to measure serum gonadotrophin levels (FSH and LH). Women with no known comorbidities should be screened for tubal occlusion. Those who are thought to have comorbidities should be offered laparoscopy and dye testing.

Improving the implementation of tailored expectant management in subfertile couples: protocol for a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models in reproductive medicine can help to identify subfertile couples who would benefit from fertility treatment. Expectant management in couples with a good chance of natural conception, i.e., tailored expectant management (TEM), prevents unnecessary treatment and is therefore recommended in international fertility guidelines. However, current implementation is not optimal, leaving room for improvement. Based on barriers and facilitators for TEM that were recently identified among professionals and subfertile couples, we have developed a multifaceted implementation strategy. The goal of this study is to assess the effects of this implementation strategy on the guideline adherence on TEM. METHODS/DESIGN: In a cluster randomized trial, 25 clinics and their allied practitioners units will be randomized between the multifaceted implementation strategy and care as usual. Randomization will be stratified for in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities (full licensed, intermediate/no IVF facilities). The effect of the implementation strategy, i.e., the percentage guideline adherence on TEM, will be evaluated by pre- and post-randomization data collection. Furthermore, there will be a process and cost evaluation of the strategy. The implementation strategy will focus on subfertile couples and their care providers i.e., general practitioners (GPs), fertility doctors, and gynecologists. The implementation strategy addresses three levels: patient level: education materials in the form of a patient information leaflet and a website; professional level: audit and feedback, educational outreach visit, communication training, and access to a digital version of the prognostic model of Hunault on a website; organizational level: providing a protocol based on the guideline. The primary outcome will be the percentage guideline adherence on TEM. Additional outcome measures will be treatment-, patient-, and process-related outcome measures. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence about the effectiveness and costs of a multifaceted implementation strategy to improve guideline adherence on TEM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.trialregister.nlNTR3405. This study is sponsored by ZonMW.

How Obamacare will impact reproductive health.

For many years, health care delivery in the United States was accomplished through a complicated and evolving series of publicly and privately available insurance programs. In recent years, the increasing cost of health care as well as the relatively large number of individuals without any health care insurance coverage has prompted repeated attempts to modify or overhaul the current health care delivery paradigm. The largest legislative change to this system occurred on March 23, 2010, when President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).The PPACA is a multifaceted and sweeping piece of legislation. The law introduces a myriad number of changes into both public and private health insurance. Understanding the law, its implications, and how to navigate through these changes is essential to provide high-quality health care to patients. Although the law or parts of it are still at risk of being modified either through judicial or political action, it is important to recognize the current aspects of the law to understand any future modifications. Providing health care coverage in the United States is sure to be as it has always been: a constantly changing and evolving set of private and public policies that carry with them significant complexities and challenges. Health care providers must constantly strive to maximize access to and quality of medical care in whatever paradigm evolves in the future.

Money-back guarantees.

As fertility rates among women of advanced reproductive age have steadily increased, so has the utilization of fertility services. National health policies provide infertility treatment coverage in several developed countries; however, in the United States infertility treatment is largely privately funded, resulting in limited access to care. In response to the lack of insurance coverage, many practices offer fertility treatment on a risk-sharing or contingency fee basis. The ethical delivery of care under the auspices of these programs requires adherence to core principles including transparency, patient autonomy, and the delivery of appropriate medical care. Moreover, concerns regarding patient understanding and decision making have also been of foremost concern. Patients must be able to fully appreciate the financial and clinical implications of contingency fee programs. To further explore patient comprehension and satisfaction, we surveyed participants in our shared risk assisted reproductive technology program. The overwhelming majority of respondents felt adequately informed of and fairly charged for their treatment. Our results demonstrate that shared risk programs can receive strong endorsement from participants, which may lead to improved utilization of and perseverance with fertility treatment.

The role of management in an in vitro fertilization practice.

An in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice is an enterprise. Like any enterprise, it has management that plays a major role, forming the structure, framework, and components that make the practice viable. Management of an IVF practice consists of two key teams: the fertility team and the management team. Management activities of the teams fall into eight core areas: business operations, financial, human resources, information technology, organizational governance, risk management, patient care systems, and quality management. Shady Grove Fertility Centers and Huntington Reproductive Center are two examples of professionally managed large fertility practices, one managed mostly centrally and the other largely managed in a decentralized way. Management is what takes a physician's IVF practice and converts it to a professional enterprise.

RESOLVE and access to care: the patient response to anti-family policies.

RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association was founded in 1974 to provide support and information for women and men living with infertility. RESOLVE has worked to increase access to care beginning with insurance coverage for infertility and more recently in fighting anti-family legislation in many state legislatures. Beginning with the Personhood ballot initiative in Colorado in 2008, RESOLVE and its grassroots advocates have been called into action to fight legislative attempts to restrict access to all family-building options, specifically in vitro fertilization. Personhood bills and ballot initiatives would severely restrict access to infertility medical treatments and prevent physicians from practicing medicine to the standard of care patients deserve. Personhood defines a fertilized egg as a person and grants full rights of "personhood" to a microscopic embryo. In addition to a growth in Personhood bills and ballot initiatives since 2008, RESOLVE has also had to fight other anti-family bills that would impose state government oversight and burdensome regulations on the practice of medicine for people with infertility. The most successful medical treatments available for people with infertility are under attack.