Knowledge, Attitudes, and Challenges: Irish General practitioners' preparedness for publicly funded Assisted reproductive technologies.

OBJECTIVES: Global access to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) remains highly inequitable. Until recently, access to ART in Ireland was solely available through private fertility clinics. Publicly funded ART was introduced in September 2023 but eligibility requires patients to meet strict access criteria that include referral by their primary care general practitioner (GP) to the local fertility service. Previous studies report that fertility training amongst doctors, including GPs, is variable and an obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) rotation is not mandatory for GP trainees in Ireland. This study aimed to investigate GPs' knowledge of fertility investigations and management, as well as attitudes towards publicly funded ART access criteria. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to GPs working in Ireland between September 2023 and January 2024. The survey questionnaire explored attitudes to, and knowledge of, ART including the publicly funded access criteria. Responses to free-text questions were qualitatively analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: The study had 154 respondents, representing approximately 4 % of GPs in Ireland. Three quarters (n = 120, 78 %) of respondents were female, 68 % (n = 105) had completed an O&G training rotation and 72 % (n = 111) had further O&G qualifications. However, 69 % (n = 107) reported that they had no training in subfertility investigation and management, and 34 % (n = 53) were not aware of the access criteria for publicly funded ART prior to completing the survey. Almost all GPs (97 %, n = 149) felt that they would benefit from more education on fertility. Qualitative content analysis generated two themes regarding publicly funded ART: (i) the access criteria are too restrictive and (ii) the workload for GPs will increase. CONCLUSIONS: GPs in Ireland are now being tasked with managing infertility and fertility treatment referrals, but most have not been provided with sufficient training. Our study shows that GPs in Ireland desire broader access criteria for publicly funded ART and better fertility training and education for their own clinical practice.

Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding, and registries in European countries-an update.

STUDY QUESTION: How are ART and IUI regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, and how has the situation changed since 2018? SUMMARY ANSWER: Of the 43 countries performing ART and IUI in Europe, and participating in the survey, specific legislation exists in only 39 countries, public funding varies across and sometimes within countries (and is lacking or minimal in four countries), and national registries are in place in 33 countries; only a small number of changes were identified, most of them in the direction of improving accessibility, through increased public financial support and/or opening access to additional subgroups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The annual reports of the European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) clearly show the existence of different approaches across Europe regarding accessibility to and efficacy of ART and IUI treatments. In a previous survey, some coherent information was gathered about how those techniques were regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, showing that diversity is the paradigm in this medical field. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A survey was designed using the SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 90 questions covering several domains (legal, funding, and registry) and considering specific details on the situation of third-party donations. New questions widened the scope of the previous survey. Answers refer to the situation of countries on 31 December 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: All members of the EIM were invited to participate. The received answers were checked and initial responders were asked to address unclear answers and to provide any additional information considered relevant. Tables resulting from the consolidated data were then sent to members of the Committee of National Representatives of ESHRE, requesting a second check. Conflicting information was clarified by direct contact. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Information was received from 43 out of the 45 European countries where ART and IUI are performed. There were 39 countries with specific legislation on ART, and artificial insemination was considered an ART technique in 33 of them. Accessibility is limited to infertile couples only in 8 of the 43 countries. In 5 countries, ART and IUI are permitted also for treatments of single women and all same sex couples, while a total of 33 offer treatment to single women and 19 offer treatment to female couples. Use of donated sperm is allowed in all except 2 countries, oocyte donation is allowed in 38, simultaneous donation of sperm and oocyte is allowed in 32, and embryo donation is allowed in 29 countries. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)-M/SR (for monogenetic disorders, structural rearrangements) is not allowed in 3 countries and PGT-A (for aneuploidy) is not allowed in 10; surrogacy is accepted in 15 countries. Except for marital/sexual situation, female age is the most frequently reported limiting criterion for legal access to ART: minimal age is usually set at 18 years and the maximum ranges from 42 to 54 with some countries not using numeric definition. Male maximum age is set in very few countries. Where third-party donors are permitted, age is frequently a limiting criterion (male maximum age ranging from 35 to 50; female maximum age from 30 to 37). Other legal restrictions in third-party donation are the number of children born from the same donor (or, in some countries, the number of families with children from the same donor) and, in 12 countries, there is a maximum number of oocyte donations. How countries deal with the anonymity is diverse: strict anonymity, anonymity just for the recipients (not for children when reaching legal adulthood age), a mixed system (anonymous and non-anonymous donations), and strict non-anonymity. Inquiring about donors' genetic screening showed that most countries have enforced either mandatory or scientific recommendations that exclude the most prevalent genetic diseases, although, again, diversity is evident. Reimbursement/compensation systems exist in more than 30 European countries, with around 10 describing clearly defined maximum amounts considered acceptable. Public funding systems are extremely variable. One country provides no financial assistance to ART/IUI patients and three offer only minimal support. Limits to the provision of funding are defined in the others i.e. age (female maximum age is the most used), existence of previous children, BMI, maximum number of treatments publicly supported, and techniques not entitled for funding. In a few countries reimbursement is linked to a clinical policy. The definitions of the type of expenses covered within an IVF/ICSI cycle, up to which limit, and the proportion of out-of-pocket costs for patients are also extremely dissimilar. National registries of ART are in place in 33 out of the 43 countries contributing to the survey and a registry of donors exists in 19 of them. When comparing with the results of the previous survey, the main changes are: (i) an extension of the beneficiaries of ART techniques (and IUI), evident in nine countries; (ii) public financial support exists now in Albania and Armenia; (iii) in Luxembourg, the only ART centre expanded its on-site activities; (iv) donor-conceived children are entitled to know the donor identity in six countries more than in 2018; and (v) four more countries have set a maximum number of oocyte donations. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the responses were provided by well-informed and committed individuals and submitted to double checking, no formal validation by official bodies was in place. Therefore, possible inaccuracies cannot be excluded. The results presented are a cross-section in time, and ART and IUI frameworks within European countries undergo continuous modification. Finally, some domains of ART activity were deliberately left out of the scope of this survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results offer a detailed updated view of the ART and IUI situation in European countries. It provides extensive answers to many relevant questions related to ART usage at the national level and could be used by institutions and policymakers at both national and European levels. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests.

Access to assisted reproductive technologies in sub-Saharan Africa: fertility professionals' views.

Across sub-Saharan Africa, there remains disagreement among local expert providers over the best ways to improve access to assisted reproduction in low-income contexts. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted between 2021 and 2023 with 19 fertility specialists and 11 embryologists and one clinic manager from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda to explore issues surrounding access and potential low-cost IVF options. Lack of access to ART was variously conceptualised as a problem of high cost of treatment; lack of public funding for medical services and medication; poor policy awareness and prioritisation of fertility problems; a shortage of ART clinics and well-trained expert staff; the need for patients to travel long distances; and over-servicing within the largely privatised sector. All fertility specialists agreed that government funding for public sector assisted reproduction services was necessary to address access in the region. Other suggestions included: reduced medication costs by using mild stimulation protocols and oocyte retrievals under sedation instead of general anaesthetics. Insufficient data on low-cost interventions was cited as a barrier to their implementation. The lack of skilled embryologists on the continent was considered a major limitation to expanding ART services and the success of low-cost IVF systems. Very few specialists suggested that profits of pharmaceutical companies or ART clinics might be reduced to lessen the costs of treatments.

This is a qualitative study involving interviews conducted between 2021 and 2023 with 19 fertility specialists and 11 embryologists and one clinic manager from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda to explore issues surrounding access and potential low-cost IVF options. The study found that across sub-Saharan Africa, clinical providers disagree over the best ways to provide assisted reproduction to improve access and affordability while maintaining high standards of care in low-income contexts. The lack of political, human resource and professional support to succeed in sub-Saharan Africa inhibits the implementation of low-cost initiatives to improve access and affordability. The study affirms the importance of giving more attention to infertility care in sub-Saharan Africa and increasing access and affordability of ARTs in the public health sector; the further development of national policies and professional guidelines; the need for more studies to evaluate low-cost initiatives; clarification of existing controversies about these initiatives; and the need for more training for embryologists in SSA.

Medicine in the marketplace: clinician and patient views on commercial influences on assisted reproductive technology.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the views and experiences of patient and expert stakeholders on the positive and negative impacts of commercial influences on the provision of assisted reproductive technology (ART) services, and what are their suggestions for governance reforms? DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 ART industry experts from across Australia and New Zealand and 25 patients undergoing ART from metropolitan and regional Australia, between September 2020 and September 2021. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Expert and patient participants considered that commercial forces influence the provision of ART in a number of positive ways - increasing sustainability, ensuring consistency in standards and providing patients with greater choice. Participants also considered commercial forces to have a number of negative impacts, including increased costs to government and patients; the excessive use of interventions that lack sufficient evidence to be considered part of standard care; inadequately informed consent (particularly with regard to financial information); and threats to patient-provider relationships and patient-centred care. Participants varied in whether they believed that professional self-regulation is sufficient. While recognizing the benefits of commercial investment in healthcare, many considered that regulatory reforms, as well as organizational cultural initiatives, are needed as means to ensure the primacy of patient well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The views expressed in this study should be systematically and critically examined to derive insights into how best to govern ART. These insights may also inform the design and delivery of other types of healthcare that are provided in the private sector.

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.

Impact of Mandated Insurance Coverage of Assisted Reproductive Technology on Clinic Website Transparency.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether website transparency of service costs, accepted insurance plans, and financing options differs between reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinics located in states that do and do not mandate insurance coverage of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Methods: Six hundred forty-six clinics were identified using the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology online locator. Clinics were excluded for missing website links, duplicate entries, broken websites, or permanent closure. Mandated coverage by state was gathered on resolve.org Chi-squared testing and logistic regression were performed. Results: Of the 311 clinic websites analyzed, 28.6% were in states that mandate ART coverage and 71.4% were not. Clinics in states that have mandated coverage were more likely to list specific prices on their websites. These clinics were 2.13 times more likely to list specific costs (odds ratio [OR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-3.81, p = 0.01). There was also a significant difference between the percent of clinics in mandated coverage states and nonmandated states that listed accepted insurance plans. These clinics were 2.44 times more likely to report accepted insurance plans (OR; 95% CI: [1.47-4.05], p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in the mention of financial assistance between the groups. Clinics in states with mandated coverage were more likely to mention discount programs, but there was no significant difference for other types of financial assistance. Conclusion: Clinics located in states that mandate insurance coverage of ART are more likely to list specific costs, accepted insurance plans, and the availability of discount programs on their website. Patients living in states without mandated coverage are more likely to need to finance their own treatment, yet these patients are less likely to have nearby clinics that provide financial transparency on their websites.

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.

The optimal design of assisted reproductive technologies policies.

This paper studies the optimal fiscal treatment of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in an economy where individuals differ in their reproductive capacity (or fecundity) and in their wage. We find that the optimal ART tax policy varies with the postulated social welfare criterion. Utilitarianism redistributes only between individuals with unequal fecundity and wages but not between parents and childless individuals. To the opposite, ex post egalitarianism (which gives absolute priority to the worst-off in realized terms) redistributes from individuals with children toward those without children, and from individuals with high fecundity toward those with low fecundity, so as to compensate for both the monetary cost of ART and the disutility from involuntary childlessness resulting from unsuccessful ART investments. Under asymmetric information and in order to solve for the incentive problem, utilitarianism recommends to either tax or subsidize ART investments of low-fecundity-low-productivity individuals at the margin, depending on the degree of complementarity between fecundity and ART in the fertility technology. On the opposite, ex post egalitarianism always recommends marginal taxation of ART.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.