Global inequality in sub-fertility treatment needs safer, cost effective, evidence-based and economically viable choices for patients and stakeholders.

The global increase in subfertility diagnosis and treatments and the rise of private equity investors concentrating on high profits based on in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatments raise profound societal and economic questions for stakeholders and patients. The question remains as to whose benefits will ultimately be greater when promoting high margins treatment options resulting from cross-border mergers and acquisitions of IVF clinics.This paper covers wide-ranging issues from the erroneously constructed UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) guidelines on treatment choices, the cost-effectiveness of treatments, the promotion of IVF, and add-ons where evidence remains minimal, the commercial size of the fertility industry. Investment in improving intrauterine insemination (IUI) success rates has understandably been avoided for its short-term impact on the IVF industry. However, IUI efficiency would cut across many of the global subfertility treatment economic and access problems while allowing stakeholder, feepaying, and patients financial savings will likely allow for more funded IVF cycles in acutely deserving cases. The recommendations will help expand choices for globally economically challenged patients' and services while enhancing an ethical and moral dimension towards fertility treatment choices for patients and stakeholders.

IUI needs fairer appraisal to improve patient and stakeholder choices.

Information supporting IVF at the expense of intrauterine insemination (IUI) has become commonplace, but it lacks critical analyses. Data from poorly practiced IUI, without an equivalent comparison to IVF, has been generalised to recommend a total abandonment of IUI in favour of IVF treatment. Our intention with this paper is to reappraise and balance arguments so that patients and stakeholders can have an unbiased informed choice. We provide information that reveals IUI to predominate over IVF in terms of integrated success, risks and cost to deliver one live birth whilst obviating the maternal and neonatal costs. Exceptional cost savings are demonstrated for IUI over IVF for fee-paying agencies and patients with lowered risks of maternal and neonatal care along with other risks including OHSS, fetal reduction and termination of pregnancies. This analysis supports the view that patients and stakeholders can choose IUI instead of IVF in most instances, except with bilateral tubal blockage and severe male factor infertility. It is apparent that fertility clinics need to re-evaluate and reconsider this field, and IUI can be of benefit to both subfertile patients and the stakeholders.