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.

Local Government Initiatives: A Comprehensive Analysis of Infertility Diagnostic and Treatment Programs in Poland (2009-2020).

BACKGROUND Infertility is an increasingly significant public health problem. However, thanks to the achievements of modern medicine, it is possible to take steps to treat it. The objective of this study was to present data about programs for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility that were developed, implemented, and financed by local governments at all levels in Poland in 2009-2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study was conducted based on the analysis of existing data from the Minister of Health. We present data on infertility diagnostics and treatment programs, the number of programs in particular years, the number of programs implemented by individual levels of local governments, the number of people participating in the programs, and the total cost of the programs in EUR. RESULTS Programs aimed at diagnosing/treating infertility began to be implemented in 2012 (most were implemented in 2019 and 2020, 18 each). Twenty-three local governments of various levels, including 5 communes, 13 cities with poviat rights, 1 poviat, and 4 voivodeships, participated in the implementation of these programs. A total of 22 379 people were covered by infertility diagnosis and treatment programs in the years 2012-2020. The cost of all implemented programs was over EUR 10.7 million. CONCLUSIONS The legal situation in Poland caused the vast majority of infertile couples who wanted to have children to have to self-finance in vitro fertilization procedures. A small number of local governments undertook actions aimed at co-financing in vitro fertilization procedures.

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'.

Prevalence and characteristics of patients declined from pursuing in vitro fertilization with autologous oocytes.

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency of and factors associated with a patient being declined from pursuing a cycle of in vitro fertilization with autologous oocytes (IVF-AO). METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a nationwide cohort of female respondents aged 35 or over, who visited a US fertility clinic from 1/2015 to 3/2020, responded to the online FertilityIQ questionnaire ( http://www.fertilityiq.com ). All respondents were asked if they were previously declined from pursuing a cycle of IVF-AO. Examined demographic and clinical predictors included age, race/ethnicity, education, income, clinic type, care received in a mandated state, insurance coverage for fertility treatment, and self-reported infertility diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios for factors associated with being declined from pursuing IVF-AO. RESULTS: Of 8660 women who met inclusion criteria, 418 (4.8%) reported previously being declined a cycle of IVF-AO. In the multivariate analysis, predictors of being declined from pursuing IVF-AO included increasing age, income of less than $50,000, and diagnoses of poor oocyte quality and diminished ovarian reserve. Predictors of being less likely to report decline included some college or college degree and diagnoses of male factor, unexplained or tubal infertility. Notably, diagnosis of PCOS or residence in a state with mandated fertility coverage was not predictive of patients being declined from pursuing IVF-AO. CONCLUSION: Nearly 5% of patients who pursued IVF reported being declined from pursuing IVF-AO. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and explore whether patients being declined treatment meet the criteria for futile or very poor prognosis.

Condition, disease, disability: how the label used to describe infertility may affect public support for fertility treatment coverage.

PURPOSE: To assess public attitudes towards fertility treatment coverage and whether attitudes are influenced by infertility labels. METHODS: Cross-sectional, web survey-based experiment using a national sample of 1226 United States adults. Participants read identical descriptions about infertility, with the exception of random assignment to infertility being labeled as a "condition," "disease," or "disability." Participants then responded to questions measuring their beliefs and attitudes towards policies related to the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. We measured public support for infertility policies, public preference for infertility labels, and whether support differed by the randomly assigned label used. We also queried associations between demographic data and support for infertility policies. RESULTS: Support was higher for insurance coverage of infertility treatments (p=.014) and fertility preservation (p=.017), and infertility public assistance programs (p=.036) when infertility was described as a "disease" or "disability" compared to "condition." Participants who were younger, were planning or trying to conceive, had a family member or friend with infertility, and/or had a more liberal political outlook were more likely to support infertility policies. A majority of participants (78%) felt the term "condition" was the best label to describe infertility, followed by "disability" (12%). The least popular label was "disease" (10%). Those preferring "condition" were older (p<.001), more likely to be non-Hispanic White (p=.046), and less likely to have an infertility diagnosis (p<.001). CONCLUSION: While less commonly identified as the best descriptors of infertility, labeling infertility as a "disease" or "disability" may increase support for policies that improve access to infertility care.

Gonadotrophins or clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of gonadotrophins compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation under strict cancellation criteria? DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Between July 2013 and March 2016, 738 couples were randomized to gonadotrophins (369) or clomiphene citrate (369) in a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands. The direct medical costs of both strategies were compared. Direct medical costs included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, insemination and, if applicable, pregnancy monitoring. Non-parametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in estimates. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between gonadotrophins and clomiphene citrate for ongoing pregnancy and live birth was assessed. RESULTS: The mean costs per couple were €1534 for gonadotrophins and €1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of €468; 95% confidence interval [CI] €464-472). As ongoing pregnancy rates were 31% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 26% in women allocated to clomiphene citrate (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.47), the ICER was €21,804 (95% CI €11,628-31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and €17,044 (95% CI €8998-25,090) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. CONCLUSIONS: Gonadotrophins are more expensive compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, without being significantly more effective.

Infertility and reproductive rights after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization, halting the principal income activities worldwide. The International Monetary Fund predicts that the imminent economic recession will be worse than the global financial crisis of 2008, which severely affected the economy of Southern European countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain. There was then an abysmal drop in the Spanish yearly population growth curve as families could not afford to have children in that economic context; this only worsened the already existing demographic problems in that Spain has a constantly ageing population and one of the lowest fertility indicators in Europe. Taking into consideration that female age is the most important independent variable of success at the time of conception, probably thousands of potentially fertile couples were lost while waiting for more promising circumstances. With the COVID-19 pandemic a similar situation is being faced, where reproductive rights are imperiled by not being able to choose when to have children due to economic coercion. Therefore, governments worldwide should take measures to palliate the possible sociodemographic crisis that will follow the economic recession and try to ease the burden that many families might face during the following years.

Access to infertility care in a low-resource setting: bridging the gap through resident and fellow education in a New York City public hospital.

PURPOSE: Improving access to care is an issue at the forefront of reproductive medicine. We sought to describe how one academic center, set in the background of a large and diverse metropolitan city, cares for patients with extremely limited access to reproductive specialists. METHODS: The NYU Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) Fellowship program provides a "fellow-run clinic" within Manhattan's Bellevue Hospital Center, which is led by the REI fellows and supervised by the REI attendings of the NYU Langone Health system. A description of the history of the hospital as well as the logistics of the fertility clinic is provided as a logistical template for implementation. RESULTS: The fellow-run fertility clinic at Bellevue hospital is held on two half days per month seeing approximately 150 new patients per year. The fertility workup, counseling, surgery, as well as ovulation induction, and early pregnancy management are offered within the construct of the fellowship and residency at NYU. Barriers to care and ways to circumvent those barriers are discussed in detail. CONCLUSION: By utilizing the ambition and construct of the OB/GYN programs, we greatly improve care for an otherwise underserved patient population by offering an efficient and optimal infertility workup and treatment in a population that would otherwise be without care. We utilize the framework of graduate medical education to provide autonomy, experience, and mentorship to both residents and fellows in our programs in an effort to provide a solution to combating inequity in infertility care.

US State-Level Infertility Insurance Mandates and Health Plan Expenditures on Infertility Treatments.

Objectives We aimed to examine the extent to which health plan expenditures for infertility services differed by whether women resided in states with mandates requiring coverage of such services and by whether coverage was provided through a self-insured plan subject to state mandates versus fully-insured health plans subject only to federal regulation. Methods This retrospective cohort study used individual-level, de-identified health insurance claims data. We included women 19-45 years of age who were continuously enrolled during 2011 and classified them into three mutually exclusive groups based on highest treatment intensity: in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), or ovulation-inducing (OI) medications. Using generalized linear models, we estimated adjusted annual mean, aggregate, and per member per month (PMPM) expenditures among women in states with an infertility insurance mandate and those in states without a mandate, stratified by enrollment in a fully-insured or self-insured health plan. Results Of the 6,006,017 women continuously enrolled during 2011, 9199 (0.15%) had claims for IVF, 10,112 (0.17%) had claims for IUI, and 23,739 (0.40%) had claims for OI medications. Among women enrolled in fully insured plans, PMPM expenditures for infertility treatment were 3.1 times higher for those living in states with a mandate compared with states without a mandate. Among women enrolled in self-insured plans, PMPM infertility treatment expenditures were 1.2 times higher for mandate versus non-mandate states. Conclusions for Practice Recorded infertility treatment expenditures were higher in states with insurance reimbursement mandates versus those without mandates, with most of the difference in expenditures incurred by fully-insured plans.

Health state utilities for infertility and subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Health state utility values allow for comparison of treatments across different diseases. Utility values for fertility-impaired health states are currently unavailable. Such values are necessary in order to determine the relative costs-effectiveness of fertility treatments. METHODS: This study aimed to determine utility weights for infertile and subfertile health states. In addition, it explored the Dutch general population's opinions regarding the inclusion of infertility treatments in the Dutch health insurers' basic benefit package. An online questionnaire was designed to determine the health-related quality of life values of six fertility-impaired health states. The study population consisted of a representative sample of the Dutch adult population. Respondents were asked to evaluate the health states through direct health valuation methods, i.e. the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Time Trade-Off (TTO) method. In addition, respondents were asked about their opinions regarding reimbursement of fertility-related treatments. RESULTS: The respondents' (n = 767) VAS scores ranged from 0.640 to 0.796. TTO utility values ranged from 0.792 to 0.868. Primary infertility and subfertility was valued lower than secondary infertility and subfertility. In total, 92% of the respondents stated that fertility treatments should be fully or partially reimbursed by the health insurance basic benefit package. CONCLUSIONS: Having fertility problems results in substantial disutilities according to the viewpoint of the Dutch general population. The results make it possible to compare the value for money of infertility treatment to that of treatments in other disease areas. There is strong support among the general population for reimbursing fertility treatments through the Dutch basic benefit package.

Business models and provider satisfaction in in vitro fertilization centers in the USA.

PURPOSE: The number of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles is increasing and the majority of patients undergoing IVF pay out of pocket. Reproductive endocrinology and infertility practitioners employ different business models to help create financial pathways for patients needing IVF but details regarding the different types of business models being used and physician satisfaction with those models have not been described previously. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent to members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. The survey included 30 questions designed to assess demographics, practice patterns, and business models utilized. RESULTS: A total of 222/736 (30%) physicians responded to the survey. The majority of physicians offer a-la-carte (67%), bundled services (69%), grants (57%), and cost/risk-sharing (50%). The majority answered that the single ideal business model is bundled services (53%). There was no significant association between financial package offered and region of practice or state-mandated insurance. The largest barrier to care reported was cost with or without state-mandated coverage (94% and 99%, respectively). The majority of practices are satisfied with their business model (75%). Higher physician satisfaction was associated with private practice [69% vs 27%; OR (95%CI) = 3.8 (1.7, 8.6)], male gender [59% vs 30%; OR = 2.4 (1.1, 5.4)], and offering bundled services [83% vs 59%; OR = 2.8 (1.2, 6.7)]. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians utilize a variety of business models and most are satisfied with their current model. Cost is the major barrier to care in states with and without mandated coverage.

[Economic studies of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer].

In vitro fertilization and embryo transplantation (IVF-ET) technology is one of the main treatments for infertility. But IVF-ET is expensive and has not be covered by health insurance in most developing countries. Therefore, how to obtain the maximum success rate with the minimum cost is a common concern of clinicians and patients. At present, the economic studies on IVF-ET mainly focus on different ovulation stimulating drugs, different ovulation stimulating protocols, different transplantation methods and the number of transplants. But the process of IVF-ET is complex, the relevant methods of economic study are diverse, and there are no unified standard for outcome indicators, so there is no unified conclusion for more economical and effective protocol by now. Therefore, to analyze the economic studies of IVF-ET, and to explore appropriate evaluation methods and cost-effective protocols will be helpful for reasonable allocation of medical resources and guidance of clinical selection. It would provide policy reference to include the costs of IVF-ET treatment in health insurance in the future.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of IVF in couples with unexplained infertility.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does delaying IVF for 6 months in couples with unexplained infertility, compared with immediate IVF treatment, decrease the cost of IVF without compromising success rates? DESIGN: Decision modelling was used to evaluate the cost and outcomes of immediate IVF versus delayed IVF for a cohort of women aged <40 years suffering unexplained infertility. Australian data and costs were used in the analysis. For different age groups, three scenarios were tested where 10%, 50% and 90% of couples with unexplained infertility delayed IVF for 6 months if they had a good prognosis for natural conception. The study included a total of 8781 couples aged <40 years, diagnosed with unexplained infertility and who had IVF in 2013. RESULTS: The studied couples underwent 27,648 fresh and frozen embryo transfers, for an estimated total cost of $141 million. Potential out-of-pocket cost savings if 90% of couples delayed IVF ranged from $4.7 to $12.2 million, with Medicare cost savings of up to $15.1 million. The impact on the total pregnancy and live birth rates after 18 months was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: In couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for natural conception, delaying IVF for 6 months could substantially decrease out-of-pocket costs without compromising pregnancy and live birth rates over an 18-month period.

"Creating a family after battling cancer is exhausting and maddening": Exploring real-world experiences of young adult cancer survivors seeking financial assistance for family building after treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Young adult (YA) cancer survivors who received gonadotoxic therapy are at risk for impaired fertility and/or childbearing difficulties. This study explored the experiences and financial concerns of survivors pursuing family building through assisted reproductive technology (ART) and adoption. METHODS: Retrospective study of data collected from grant applications for financial assistance with family building. Grounded theory methodology using an inductive data-driven approach guided qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: Participants (N = 46) averaged 32 years old (SD = 3.4) were primarily female (81%) and married/partnered (83%). Four main themes were identified representing the (1) emotional experiences and (2) financial barriers to family building after cancer, (3) perceived impact on partners, and (4) disrupted life trajectory. Negative emotions were pervasive but were balanced with hope and optimism that parenthood would be achieved. Still, the combination of high ART/adoption costs, the financial impact of cancer, and limited sources for support caused extreme financial stress. Further, in the face of these high costs, many survivors reported worry and guilt about burdening partners, particularly as couples failed to meet personal and societal expectations for parenthood timelines. CONCLUSION: After cancer, YAs face numerous psychosocial and financial difficulties in their pursuits of family building when ART/adoption is needed to achieve parenthood. Survivors interested in future children may benefit from follow-up fertility counseling post-treatment including discussion of ART options, surrogacy, and adoption, as appropriate, and potential barriers. Planning for the financial cost and burden in particular may help to avoid or mitigate financial stress later on.

Projecting the potential impact of the Cap-Score™ on clinical pregnancy, live births, and medical costs in couples with unexplained infertility.

PURPOSE: The Cap-Score™ was developed to assess the capacitation status of men, thereby enabling personalized management of unexplained infertility by choosing timed intrauterine insemination (IUI), versus immediate in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in individuals with a low Cap-Score™. The objective of this study was to estimate the differences in outcomes and costs comparing the use of the Cap-Score™ with timed IUI (CS-TI) and the standard of care (SOC), which was assumed to be three IUI cycles followed by three IVF-ICSI cycles. METHODS: We developed and parameterized a decision-analytic model of management of unexplained infertility for women based on data from the published literature. We calculated the clinical pregnancy rates, live birth rates, and medical costs comparing CS-TI and SOC. We used Monte Carlo simulation to quantify uncertainty in projected estimates and performed univariate sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Compared to SOC, CS-TI was projected to increase the pregnancy rate by 1-26%, marginally reduce live birth rates by 1-3% in couples with women below 40 years, increase live birth rates by 3-7% in couples with women over 40 years, reduce mean medical costs by $4000-$19,200, reduce IUI costs by $600-$1370, and reduce IVF costs by $3400-$17,800, depending on the woman's age. CONCLUSION: The Cap-Score™ is a potentially valuable clinical tool for management of unexplained infertility because it is projected to improve clinical pregnancy rates, save money, and, depending on the price of the test, increase access to treatment for infertility.

Cost-effectiveness of 'immediate IVF' versus 'delayed IVF': a prospective study.

STUDY QUESTION: How does the cost-effectiveness (CE) of immediate IVF compared with postponing IVF for 1 year, depend on prognostic characteristics of the couple? SUMMARY ANSWER: The CE ratio, i.e. the incremental costs of immediate versus delayed IVF per extra live birth, is the highest (range of €15 000 to >€60 000) for couples with unexplained infertility and for them depends strongly on female age and the duration of infertility, whilst being lowest for endometriosis (range 8000-23 000) and, for such patients, only slightly dependent on female age and duration of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A few countries have guidelines for indications of IVF, using the diagnostic category, female age and duration of infertility. The CE of these guidelines is unknown and the evidence base exists only for bilateral tubal occlusion, not for the other diagnostic categories. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A modelling approach was applied, based on the literature and data from a prospective cohort study among couples eligible for IVF or ICSI treatment, registered in a national waiting list in The Netherlands between January 2002 and December 2003. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 5962 couples was included. Chances of natural ongoing pregnancy were estimated from the waiting list observations and chances of ongoing pregnancy after IVF from follow-up data of couples with primary infertility that began treatment. Prognostic characteristics considered were female age, duration of infertility and diagnostic category. Costs of IVF were assessed from a societal perspective and determined on a representative sample of patients. A cost-effectiveness comparison was made between two scenarios: (I) wait one more year and then undergo IVF for 1 year and (II) immediate IVF during 1 year, and try to conceive naturally in the following year. Comparisons were made for strata determined by the prognostic factors. The final outcome was a live birth. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The gain in live birth rate of the immediate IVF scenario versus postponed IVF increased with female age, and was independent from diagnostic category or duration of infertility. By contrast, the corresponding increase in costs primarily depended on diagnostic category and duration of infertility. The lowest CE ratio was just below €10 000 per live birth for endometriosis from age 34 onwards at 1 year duration. The highest CE ratio reached €56 000 per live birth for unexplained infertility at age 30 and 3 years duration, dropping to values below € 30 000 per live birth from age 32 onwards. It reached values below €20 000 per live birth with 3 years duration at age 34 and older. The CE ratio was in between for the three other diagnostic categories (i.e. Male infertility, Hormonal and Immunological/Cervical). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We applied estimates of chances with IVF, excluding frozen embryos, for which we had no data. Therefore, we do not know the effect of frozen embryo transfers on the CE. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The duration of infertility at which IVF becomes cost-effective depends, firstly, on the level of society's willingness to pay for one extra live birth, and secondly, given a certain level of willingness to pay, on the woman's age and the diagnostic category. In current guidelines, the chances of a natural conception should always be taken into account before deciding whether to start IVF treatment and at which time. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, grant 945-12-013). ZonMW had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the report. Competing interests: none.

Reproducing politics: the politicisation of patients' identities and assisted reproduction in Poland and Sweden.

This article examines how discourses on assisted reproductive technologies are locally appropriated, translated or contested in the specific cultural and political contexts of Poland and Sweden. The aim is to investigate how two national patients' organisations, namely the Polish association Nasz Bocian and the Swedish organisation Barnlängtan, articulate rights claims in the context of reproductive technologies. To this end, we investigate how these organisations utilise specific context-dependent and affectively laden political vocabularies in order to mobilise politically, and discuss how each of these two groups gives rise to a different set of politicised reproductive identities. In order to trace which political vocabularies the respective organisations utilise to mobilise their respective rights claims, we draw primarily on political discourse theory and concepts of political grammars and empty signifiers. Lastly, we discuss which political reproductive identities emerge as a result of these different versions of political mobilisation around assisted reproductive technologies.

Infertility in reproductive-age female cancer survivors.

Improved survival rates among reproductive-age females diagnosed with cancer have increased the focus on long-term quality of life, including maintenance of the ability to conceive biological children. Cancer-directed therapies such as high-dose alkylating agents and radiation to the pelvis, which deplete ovarian reserve, radiation to the brain, which affects the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, and surgical resection of reproductive structures can decrease the likelihood of having biological children. Standard fertility preservation strategies such as embryo and oocyte cryopreservation before the onset of therapy offer the opportunity to conserve fertility, but they may not be feasible because of the urgency to start cancer therapy, financial limitations, and a lack of access to reproductive endocrinologists. Ovarian tissue freezing is considered experimental, with limited data related to pregnancies, but it minimizes treatment delay. Studies evaluating gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues have had mixed results, although a recent randomized, prospective study in women with breast cancer demonstrated a protective effect. Fertility preservation programs are increasingly being developed within cancer programs. In this article, we describe risks to infertility and options for preservation, raise psychosocial and ethical issues, and propose elements for establishing an effective fertility preservation program.

Economic aspects of infertility care: a challenge for researchers and clinicians.

Infertility care has improved remarkably over the last few decades and has received growing attention from health care providers. Several treatments, including expensive options such as Assisted Reproductive Techniques, are now widely available for routine clinical use. In most cases, adoption of these treatments has occurred without robust cost-effective analyses. IVF for unexplained infertility and ICSI in the absence of semen abnormalities are two examples of this gradual technology creep. More in-depth economic analyses in the field of infertility are undoubtedly warranted. However, performing these analyses is challenging because infertility care poses a number of unique challenges. Studies of cost-effectiveness are open to criticism because there is a lack of consensus about the outcomes of choice and the appropriate perspective. The use of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) to allow comparisons with other clinical conditions is also controversial because the value associated with infertility care cannot be easily captured in QALYs. Moreover, their use triggers the crucial question of whose QALYs merit consideration-an individual's, a couple's or a child's. In conclusion, economic analysis in infertility represents a peculiar but crucial challenge. If management of infertility is to become an integral part of publicly or privately funded health care systems worldwide, better quality data and a shared vision about the costs and benefits of infertility treatments are needed.

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.