Infertility coverage is good business

Isaacs, Joseph C.

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.089

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of 605 employers nationwide with an infertility benefit, 91% responded that providing the benefit had not resulted in a significant increase in health care costs (47), suggesting that the cost of offering infertility services can be managed.…”

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infertility evaluation and treatment among women in the United States

Kessler

Craig

Plosker

et al. 2013

Fertility and Sterility

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To examine the characteristics of women seeking infertility evaluation and treatment. Design Cross-sectional survey based on in-person interviews, followed by two-step hurdle analysis. Participants 4,558 married or cohabitating women ages 25–44 Setting U.S. household population of women based on the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth Intervention None Main Outcome Measure(s) Likelihood of seeking preliminary infertility evaluation. Likelihood of seeking infertility treatment once evaluated. Treatment type provided. Results 623 women (13.7%) reported seeking infertility evaluation, of which 328 reported undergoing subsequent infertility treatment. Age at marriage, marital status, education, health insurance status, race/ethnicity, and religion were associated with the likelihood of seeking infertility evaluation. For example, the predicted probability that a non-White woman who married at 25 will seek evaluation was 12%. This probability increased to 34% for White women with a graduate degree who married at age 30. Among women who are evaluated, income, employment status, and ethnicity correlated strongly with the likelihood of seeking infertility treatment. Infertility drug therapy was the most frequent treatment used. Reproductive surgery and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were used the least. Conclusions The use of infertility services is not random and understanding the socio-demographic factors correlated with use may assist new couples with family planning. Roughly 50% of the women evaluated for infertility progressed to treatment, and only a small proportion were treated with more advanced assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as IVF therapy. Future research aimed at improving access to effective healthcare treatments within the boundaries of affordability is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infertility evaluation and treatment among women in the United States

Kessler

Craig

Plosker

et al. 2013

Fertility and Sterility

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the contrary, numerous studies have demonstrated that the per capital incremental cost of fertility coverage is minimal and significantly less than many routinely covered treatments [ 32 , 50 – 53 ]. A 2006 survey of over 600 US employers who offered an infertility benefit found that > 90% reported that their infertility benefit did not add significant costs [ 54 ]. Other studies among large employers indicate that a limited infertility benefit accounts for < 0.5–0.8% of total health care expenditures [ 55 , 56 ], and more recent data from Massachusetts showed that infertility treatment accounted for 0.12–0.95% of total premium costs [ 14 ].…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of in vitro fertilization state mandates for third party insurance coverage in the United States: a review and critical assessment

Peipert

Montoya

Bedrick

et al. 2022

Reprod Biol Endocrinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine estimates that fewer than a quarter of infertile couples have sufficient access to infertility care. Insurers in the United States (US) have long considered infertility to be a socially constructed condition, and thus in-vitro fertilization (IVF) an elective intervention. As a result, IVF is cost prohibitive for many patients in the US. State infertility insurance mandates are a crucial mechanism for expanding access to fertility care in the US in the absence of federal legislation. The first state insurance mandate for third party coverage of infertility services was passed by West Virginia in 1977, and Maryland passed the country’s first IVF mandate in 1985. To date, twenty states have passed legislation requiring insurers to cover or offer coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Ten states currently have “comprehensive” IVF mandates, meaning they require third party coverage for IVF with minimal restrictions to patient eligibility, exemptions, and lifetime limits. Several studies analyzing the impact of infertility and IVF mandates have been published in the past 20 years. In this review, we characterize and contextualize the existing evidence of the impact of state insurance mandates on access to infertility treatment, IVF practice patterns, and reproductive outcomes. Furthermore, we summarize the arguments in favor of insurance coverage for infertility care and assess the limitations of state insurance mandates as a strategy for increasing access to infertility treatment. State mandates play a key role in the promotion of evidence-based practices and represent an essential and impactful strategy for the advancement of gender equality and reproductive rights.

show abstract

“…First, in practice, the price of this insurance is modest. In a 2006 survey of >600 employers that offered an infertility benefit, 91% reported that it did not add significant cost (90). Large employers have reported in other studies that a limited infertility benefit accounted for <0.5%-0.85% of their health care expenditures (91,92).…”

Section: Ethical Benefits Of Improving Access and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2021

Fertility and Sterility

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infertility coverage is good business

Cited by 10 publications

References 9 publications

Infertility evaluation and treatment among women in the United States

Infertility evaluation and treatment among women in the United States

Impact of in vitro fertilization state mandates for third party insurance coverage in the United States: a review and critical assessment

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About