Special Article
Insurance Coverage and Outcomes of in Vitro Fertilization
N Engl J Med 2002; 347:661-666August 29, 2002
- Abstract
Background
Although most insurance companies in the United States do not cover in vitro fertilization, a few states mandate such coverage.
Methods
We used 1998 data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 360 fertility clinics in the United States and 2000 U.S. Census data to determine utilization and outcomes of in vitro fertilization services according to the status of insurance coverage.
Results
Of the states in which in vitro fertilization services were available, 3 states (31 clinics) required complete insurance coverage, 5 states (27 clinics) required partial coverage, and 37 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia (302 clinics) required no coverage. Clinics in states that required complete coverage performed more in vitro fertilization cycles than clinics in states that required partial or no coverage (3.35 vs. 1.46 and 1.21 transfers per 1000 women of reproductive age, respectively; P<0.001) and more transfers of frozen embryos (0.43 vs. 0.30 and 0.20 per 1000 women of reproductive age, respectively; P<0.001). The percentage of cycles that resulted in live births was higher in states that did not require any coverage than in states that required partial or complete coverage (25.7 percent vs. 22.2 percent and 22.7 percent, respectively; P<0.001), but the percentage of pregnancies with three or more fetuses was also higher (11.2 percent vs. 8.9 percent and 9.7 percent, respectively; P=0.007). The number of fresh embryos transferred per cycle was lower in states that required complete coverage than in states that required partial or no coverage (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively).
Conclusions
State-mandated insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization services is associated with increased utilization of these services but with decreases in the number of embryos transferred per cycle, the percentage of cycles resulting in pregnancy, and the percentage of pregnancies with three or more fetuses.
Media in This Article
Table 1
State Requirements for Insurance Coverage of in Vitro Fertilization Services (as of November 2001).Table 2
Utilization Rates for in Vitro Fertilization Services According to the Category of Required Insurance Coverage.Article Activity
- Article
More than 4 million women in the United States are unable to have children.1 A substantial number of these women cannot conceive with conventional methods of treatment, such as induction of ovulation, surgery, and insemination with donor sperm, and subsequently become candidates for in vitro fertilization. Since in vitro fertilization was introduced in 1978,2 there has been a growing debate about whether the substantial medical costs associated with this procedure should be covered by health insurance. Estimates for the direct cost of a single in vitro fertilization cycle range from $7,000 to $11,000.3,4
In the United States, in vitro fertilization is primarily a privately funded treatment.5 However, a handful of states have passed laws requiring that insurance companies provide either partial or complete coverage of in vitro fertilization. As of November 2001, three states had laws mandating complete coverage (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island), and five states had laws requiring partial coverage (Arkansas, Hawaii, Maryland, Ohio, and West Virginia).6 Five states did not have in vitro fertilization services (Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, and Wyoming). The remaining 37 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, had clinics that provided in vitro fertilization services primarily on a fee-for-service basis. On January 1, 2002, New Jersey became the fourth state to require complete insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization.
We conducted a study to determine whether insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization services is associated with increased use of such services and whether insurance coverage affects the practice patterns of fertility clinics and the outcomes of their services. Using the most recent data on rates of success of assisted reproductive technology (from 1998),7 we specifically sought to determine whether state-mandated insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization affects utilization, pregnancy rates, and multiple-gestation rates.
Methods
Collection of Data
In accordance with the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collects annual data on success rates at fertility clinics.8 The data are compiled by the CDC; the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, which is an affiliate of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; and RESOLVE: the National Infertility Association. The most recent report includes success rates in 1998 at 360 of the 390 fertility clinics in the United States.7 Despite the federal requirement to report success rates, 30 clinics either failed to submit their data to the CDC or did not provide verification by the clinic medical director that the tabulated success rates were correct. Two of the 30 nonreporting clinics were in states that require complete insurance coverage, and the rest were in states that do not require coverage.
The assisted reproductive techniques consisted of in vitro fertilization (in 96 percent of cycles), gamete intrafallopian transfer (in 2 percent), and zygote intrafallopian transfer (in 2 percent). The overall rates of live births per oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, and zygote intrafallopian transfer were nearly identical (29.0 percent, 28.0 percent, and 29.2 percent, respectively). Since in vitro fertilization accounted for the vast majority of the cycles, we use the term in this report as a synonym for assisted reproductive technology. Only cycles involving fresh or frozen embryos from nondonor eggs were analyzed (61,650 and 10,058 cycles, respectively).
Pertinent data from the 1998 report were downloaded from the CDC Web site for analysis.9 Data on fertility clinics were separated by state and then assigned to one of three categories on the basis of the requirement for insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization (complete, partial, or no coverage).
Complete insurance coverage was defined as a requirement that health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and insurance companies cover the costs of diagnosis and treatment of infertility (including in vitro fertilization). Partial coverage was defined as a requirement of limited coverage of in vitro fertilization (e.g., required coverage only by HMOs, a maximal lifetime benefit of $15,000, or coverage of only a portion of the cost of in vitro fertilization). No coverage was defined as the absence of any requirement that HMOs or insurance companies cover in vitro fertilization. The coverage guidelines for states with complete and partial coverage are outlined in Table 1Table 1
State Requirements for Insurance Coverage of in Vitro Fertilization Services (as of November 2001)..6 For each fertility clinic, the 1998 report provides percentages for several variables: cycles resulting in pregnancies, cycles resulting in live births, oocyte retrievals resulting in live births, embryo transfers resulting in live births, cancellations (cycles that were stopped before oocyte retrieval or embryo transfer), pregnancies with twins, pregnancies with three or more fetuses, live births of multiple infants, and transfers of frozen embryos resulting in live births. For purposes of calculation, we converted these percentages to raw numbers, assigned them to one of our three insurance-coverage categories, and then reconverted the data into percentages. Since the initial percentages were reported to one decimal place, there was the potential for small rounding errors during the conversion process. However, any such error would be minor because of the large numbers in the data set and because it would affect all clinics equally.
The CDC data were organized into four age groups (<35, 35 to 37, 38 to 40, and >40 years). The age range of women who underwent in vitro fertilization in 1998 was defined as 25 to 45 years, on the basis of the CDC data (less than 1 percent of women who underwent an assisted reproductive technology cycle were less than 25 or more than 45 years old). We downloaded data on the U.S. population from the Census Bureau Web site.10 Data for 2000 were used, since they were closest in time to the 1998 CDC data. Population data for women in every state were organized into four age groups (25 to 34, 35 to 37, 38 to 40, and 41 to 45 years) and then stratified according to the three insurance-coverage categories. Age-specific utilization of in vitro fertilization per 1000 women was calculated according to insurance status on the basis of the 2000 Census data and was standardized to the age distribution in all states that offer in vitro fertilization with the use of direct standardization methods.11
Statistical Analysis
Outcome data for all the fertility clinics were normally distributed. We used chi-square tests to compare the age-specific utilization rates and several key in vitro fertilization outcomes according to insurance status. A two-tailed t-test was used to compare the average numbers of fresh and frozen embryos transferred per cycle in the three insurance categories.
Results
Of the 360 infertility clinics in the United States in 1998 for which data were available, 31 were in states requiring complete insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization, 27 were in states requiring partial coverage, and 302 were in states that did not require any coverage. In 1998, these clinics performed a total of 61,650 in vitro fertilization cycles involving fresh, nondonor eggs and 10,058 cycles involving transfers of frozen embryos (from nondonor eggs). In 2000, on the basis of Census data, approximately 3.2 million women between the ages of 25 and 45 years lived in states requiring complete insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization, 3.5 million lived in states requiring partial coverage, and 37.8 million lived in states that did not require any coverage. Table 2Table 2
Utilization Rates for in Vitro Fertilization Services According to the Category of Required Insurance Coverage. shows the correlations between these three categories of insurance coverage and utilization of in vitro fertilization services. Clinics in states that required complete insurance coverage performed more in vitro fertilization cycles and embryo transfers (3.35 fresh-embryo cycles and 0.43 transfer of frozen embryos per 1000 women) than states requiring partial insurance (1.46 fresh-embryo cycles and 0.30 transfer of frozen embryos per 1000 women) and states with no insurance (1.21 fresh-embryo cycles and 0.20 transfer of frozen embryos per 1000 women), after adjustment for age (P<0.001 for all comparisons).As shown in Table 3Table 3
Age-Standardized Outcomes of in Vitro Fertilization According to the Category of Required Insurance Coverage., the percentages of cycles resulting in pregnancy, cycles resulting in live births, oocyte retrievals resulting in live births, and embryo transfers resulting in live births were significantly higher in states with no mandated insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization than in states requiring partial or complete coverage (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The percentage of live births involving multiple infants was also higher in the states that did not require coverage than in those that required partial or complete coverage (P=0.04), primarily because of a higher rate of pregnancies involving three or more fetuses in the states with no required coverage (P=0.007). The mean number of fresh embryos transferred per cycle was lower in states that required complete insurance coverage (3.25) than in states that required partial coverage (3.54, P=0.001) or no coverage (3.59, P<0.001) (Table 4Table 4
Mean (±SE) Number of Fresh or Frozen Embryos Transferred, According to the Category of Required Insurance Coverage.). A similar pattern was observed with frozen-embryo transfers, but the differences were not statistically significant.To evaluate further the association between the number of embryos transferred and the rates of triplets or higher-order multiple gestations, we performed analyses of insurance status and multiple-gestation rates that were stratified according to the mean number of embryos transferred across all clinics (3.53). For clinics at which the mean number of embryos transferred was lower than 3.53, the rate of pregnancies in which there were three or more fetuses was 8.7 percent in states requiring complete coverage, 8.3 percent in states requiring partial coverage, and 10.4 percent in those that did not require any coverage (P=0.02). For clinics at which the mean number of embryos transferred was 3.53 or higher, the rates were 10.3 percent, 10.5 percent, and 12.2 percent, respectively (P=0.14).
Discussion
Our study shows that states that require complete insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization services have the highest rates of utilization of such services, states that do not require any coverage have the lowest rates, and states that require partial coverage have intermediate rates. States that do not require insurance coverage have the highest number of embryos transferred per cycle, the highest rates of pregnancy and live births from in vitro fertilization, and the highest rates of live births of multiple infants (especially three or more).
It is logical to assume that if an expensive, elective medical procedure that is effective, such as in vitro fertilization, were covered by all health insurance companies, the demand for it and the rate of utilization would increase.5 With an increased demand for in vitro fertilization services, more clinics would open and existing clinics would increase their capacity, ultimately leading to improved access to care. Our analysis showed that complete insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization in the United States was associated with a rate of utilization that was 277 percent of the rate in the absence of coverage (3.35 vs. 1.21 fresh-embryo cycles per 1000 women of reproductive age). Consistent with this observation, in 1993, the numbers of in vitro fertilization cycles attempted per capita in Ontario, Canada, and in France, both of which provide coverage for in vitro fertilization as part of national health insurance programs, were 279 percent and 494 percent, respectively, of the number in the United States.4 These findings suggest that in states that do not require insurance coverage, a substantial number of women who might benefit from in vitro fertilization do not undergo it, probably because of financial constraints, in most cases, and possibly because of limited access to care, in some cases.
Although the rates of pregnancy and live births from in vitro fertilization are higher in states that do not require insurance coverage, so are the rates of pregnancies with three or more fetuses, probably because more embryos are transferred per cycle in these states than in states that require complete insurance coverage. It is also possible that because patients must pay out of pocket in states without mandated coverage, physicians are under pressure to obtain a “successful” outcome the first time and therefore transfer more embryos per cycle.12,13
A possible alternative explanation for the lower pregnancy rate in states that require insurance coverage is that a larger proportion of older women (who are less likely than younger women to become pregnant) undergo in vitro fertilization in these states, simply because it is covered by insurance. If they had to pay out of pocket, these older women might instead choose in vitro fertilization with eggs from a donor (an approach that has a higher success rate) or adoption. However, the increase in the rate of utilization in states that require coverage as compared with those that do not is only slightly higher for women who are 38 to 45 years old than for those who are 25 to 37 (fresh-embryo cycles, a 293 percent increase vs. a 269 percent increase; transfers of frozen embryos, a 211 percent increase vs. a 201 percent increase). This small difference is not likely to account for the large difference in pregnancy rates between states requiring insurance coverage and those not requiring coverage.
We cannot rule out the possibility that the pregnancy rate is higher in states that do not require insurance coverage because a greater number of women who are likely to become pregnant (for reasons other than age) undergo in vitro fertilization in those states. Insurance companies and HMOs in states with mandated coverage require that women undergo a certain number of cycles of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination before in vitro fertilization. Since this is not a requirement in states that do not require coverage, perhaps women in these states proceed to in vitro fertilization (a procedure with a higher success rate) more quickly to conserve financial resources. Such women may tend to have a higher rate of pregnancy with in vitro fertilization.
One of the limitations of our study is that our data reflect populations of women rather than individual women. In addition, we did not have information available to control for some potentially confounding factors (e.g., differences between states in the cause of infertility, the quality of care, the quality of embryos, the number of oocytes retrieved per cycle, the results of ovarian-reserve testing, or the number of prior in vitro fertilization cycles attempted). However, there are no data suggesting that such factors differ among states or between states that require insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization and those that do not.
Another limitation is that the three states classified as having complete insurance coverage (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) may in fact limit coverage for some women. In Illinois, businesses with fewer than 25 employees are exempt from the requirement to provide insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization. Furthermore, our classification of insurance coverage does not account for instances in which a woman residing in one state obtains services in another state. For example, residents of states that do not have fertility clinics (Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, and Wyoming) may pay out of pocket for in vitro fertilization services in states that require complete or partial insurance coverage. Similarly, residents of states that do not require coverage may pay for in vitro fertilization services in states that require complete or partial coverage. Conversely, some women in states that do not require insurance coverage may actually have insurance plans that cover in vitro fertilization, even though the coverage is not required. Any misclassification of insurance status would probably be random with respect to outcomes and would probably attenuate the observed associations between insurance status and outcomes.
This study has potential implications for public health. In states that do not require insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization, more embryos were transferred per cycle and there were higher rates of multiple births (especially of three or more infants). The transfer of more embryos has been associated with an increased risk of multiple births.14-20 In addition, multiple births have been associated with increased short-term and long-term risks for the woman and her children. The maternal risks include premature labor, premature delivery, pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes, and uterine hemorrhage.13,21-24 Multiple births also entail personal as well as financial costs for the parents. The risks to the children include prematurity (associated with the respiratory distress syndrome, intracranial hemorrhage, cerebral palsy, and blindness), death, and physical, mental, and developmental disabilities.13,22-25
Furthermore, the economic impact of multiple births on society is tremendous. In 1991, hospital charges for the delivery of twins were 4 times as high and charges for triplets were 11 times as high as charges for a singleton delivery.26 However, although multiple births as a percentage of total births might be expected to decrease with mandated insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization services, the expected increase in the utilization of such services would probably result in a higher absolute number of multiple births.
According to a 1995 analysis, a typical health insurance plan for a family in the United States cost $3,393 per year, and the estimated cost of adding coverage for in vitro fertilization services was $3.14 per year.4 In our study, insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization was associated with a 277 percent increase in utilization (for fresh-embryo cycles). Even with this increase and even though the costs are higher today than they were in 1995, the additional cost of covering in vitro fertilization is still likely to be a small fraction of the total cost of a family plan.4 Of course, this does not include additional costs generated by these procedures.
In conclusion, state-mandated health insurance coverage of in vitro fertilization services is associated with greater utilization of such services but with reductions in the number of embryos transferred per cycle, the proportion of cycles resulting in pregnancy, and the proportion of pregnancies with three or more fetuses.
Dr. Hornstein is a member of the Medical Advisory Board of the Women's Integrated Network, which provides medical management and oversight of specialized insurance protocols.
We are indebted to Robert L. Barbieri, M.D., Daniel W. Cramer, M.D., Sc.D., and Jaylyn Olivo for reviewing the manuscript and to Allison F. Vitonis for assistance with the statistical analysis.
Source Information
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (T.J., M.D.H.) and the Obstetrics and Gynecology Epidemiology Center (B.L.H.), Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Hornstein at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02115, or at mhornstein@partners.org.
- References
References
1
Mosher WD ,Pratt WF . Fecundity and infertility in the United States: incidence and trends. Fertil Steril 1991;56:192-193
Web of Science | Medline2
Steptoe PC ,Edwards RG . Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978;2:336-3363
Neumann PJ ,Gharib SD ,Weinstein MC . The cost of a successful delivery with in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 1994;331:239-243
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline4
Collins JA ,Bustillo M ,Visscher RD ,Lawrence LD . An estimate of the cost of in vitro fertilization services in the United States in 1995. Fertil Steril 1995;64:538-545
Web of Science | Medline5
Neumann PJ . Should health insurance cover IVF? Issues and options. J Health Polit Policy Law 1997;22:1215-1239
Web of Science | Medline6
American Society for Reproductive Medicine. State infertility insurance laws. (Accessed August 6, 2002, at http://www.asrm.org/Patients/insur.html.)
7
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, RESOLVE. 1998 Assisted reproductive technology success rates. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000.
8
Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA), Pub. L. No. 102-493, October 24, 1992.
9
1998 Assisted reproductive technology success rates. (Accessed August 6, 2002, at http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/art98/index.htm.)
10
Census 2000 summary file 2. (Accessed August 6, 2002, at http://factfinder.census.gov.)
11
Rothman KJ. Modern epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown, 1986:41-7.
12
Collins JA . Reproductive technology -- the price of progress. N Engl J Med 1994;331:270-271
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline13
Multiple pregnancy associated with infertility therapy. Birmingham, Ala.: American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2000.
14
Staessen C ,Janssenswillen C ,Van den Abbeel E ,Devroey P ,Van Steirteghem AC . Avoidance of triplet pregnancies by elective transfer of two good quality embryos. Hum Reprod 1993;8:1650-1653
Web of Science | Medline15
Balen AH ,MacDougall J ,Tan SL . The influence of the number of embryos transferred in 1060 in-vitro fertilization pregnancies on miscarriage rates and pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod 1993;8:1324-1328
Web of Science | Medline16
Tasdemir M ,Tasdemir I ,Kodama H ,Fukuda J ,Tanaka T . Two instead of three embryo transfer in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2155-2158
Web of Science | Medline17
Faber K . IVF in the US: multiple gestation, economic competition, and the necessity of excess. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1614-1616
Web of Science | Medline18
Roest J ,van Heusden AM ,Verhoeff A ,Mous HV ,Zeilmaker GH . A triplet pregnancy after in vitro fertilization is a procedure-related complication that should be prevented by replacement of two embryos only. Fertil Steril 1997;67:290-295
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Templeton A ,Morris JK . Reducing the risk of multiple births by transfer of two embryos after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 1998;339:573-577
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline20
Schieve LA ,Peterson HB ,Meikle S , et al. Live-birth rates and multiple-birth risk using in vitro fertilization. JAMA 1999;282:1832-1838
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Seoud MA ,Toner JP ,Kruithoff C ,Muasher SJ . Outcome of twin, triplet, and quadruplet in vitro fertilization pregnancies: the Norfolk experience. Fertil Steril 1992;57:825-834
Web of Science | Medline22
Albrecht JL ,Tomich PG . The maternal and neonatal outcome of triplet gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1551-1556
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Elster N . Less is more: the risks of multiple births. Fertil Steril 2000;74:617-623
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Tallo CP ,Vohr B ,Oh W ,Rubin LP ,Seifer DB ,Haning RV Jr . Maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with in vitro fertilization. J Pediatr 1995;127:794-800
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL, eds. Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1996:821-62.
26
Callahan TL ,Hall JE ,Ettner SL ,Christiansen CL ,Greene MF ,Crowley WF Jr . The economic impact of multiple-gestation pregnancies and the contribution of assisted-reproduction techniques to their incidence. N Engl J Med 1994;331:244-249
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (74)
Citing Articles
1
Marianne Bitler, Lucie Schmidt. (2011) Utilization of Infertility Treatments: The Effects of Insurance Mandates. Demography
CrossRef2
EVAN M. ROSENBLUTH, BRADLEY J. VAN VOORHIS. (2011) Evolving Role of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 54:4, 734-745
CrossRef3
(2011) Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility
CrossRef4
(2011) Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility
CrossRef5
Robert D. Nachtigall, Kirstin MacDougall, Anne C. Davis, Yewoubdar Beyene. (2011) Expensive but worth it: older parents’ attitudes and opinions about the costs and insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility
CrossRef6
Barton H. Hamilton, Brian McManus. (2011) THE EFFECTS OF INSURANCE MANDATES ON CHOICES AND OUTCOMES IN INFERTILITY TREATMENT MARKETS. Health Economicsn/a-n/a
CrossRef7
Georgina M. Chambers. 2011. 31 The intersection between economic and ethical aspects of ART. , 371-392.
CrossRef8
James F. Smith, Michael L. Eisenberg, David Glidden, Susan G. Millstein, Marcelle Cedars, Thomas J. Walsh, Jonathan Showstack, Lauri A. Pasch, Nancy Adler, Patricia P. Katz. (2011) Socioeconomic disparities in the use and success of fertility treatments: analysis of data from a prospective cohort in the United States. Fertility and Sterility 96:1, 95-101
CrossRef9
Stacey A. Missmer, David B. Seifer, Tarun Jain. (2011) Cultural factors contributing to health care disparities among patients with infertility in Midwestern United States. Fertility and Sterility 95:6, 1943-1949
CrossRef10
J. Ryan Martin, Jason G. Bromer, Denny Sakkas, Pasquale Patrizio. (2011) Insurance coverage and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a U.S. perspective. Fertility and Sterility 95:3, 964-969
CrossRef11
(2011) Multiple pregnancy following assisted reproduction. Human Fertility 14:1, 3-7
CrossRef12
Yechezkel Lande, Daniel S. Seidman, Ettie Maman, Micha Baum, Jehoshua Dor, Ariel Hourvitz. (2011) Couples offered free assisted reproduction treatment have a very high chance of achieving a live birth within 4 years. Fertility and Sterility 95:2, 568-572
CrossRef13
A. Maheshwari, S. Griffiths, S. Bhattacharya. (2011) Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. Human Reproduction Update 17:1, 107-120
CrossRef14
Joanna N. Lahey. (2011) The efficiency of a group-specific mandated benefit revisited: The effect of infertility mandates. Journal of Policy Analysis and Managementn/a-n/a
CrossRef15
Desireé M. McCarthy-Keith, Enrique F. Schisterman, Randal D. Robinson, Kathleen O’Leary, Richard S. Lucidi, Alicia Y. Armstrong. (2010) Will decreasing assisted reproduction technology costs improve utilization and outcomes among minority women?. Fertility and Sterility 94:7, 2587-2589
CrossRef16
Nicole K. Banks, John M. Norian, M. Kate Bundorf, Melinda B. Henne. (2010) Insurance mandates, embryo transfer, outcomes—the link is tenuous. Fertility and Sterility 94:7, 2776-2779
CrossRef17
M. P. Connolly, S. Hoorens, G. M. Chambers, . (2010) The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Human Reproduction Update 16:6, 603-613
CrossRef18
Patricia E. Hershberger, Penny F. Pierce. (2010) Conceptualizing couples’ decision making in PGD: Emerging cognitive, emotional, and moral dimensions. Patient Education and Counseling 81:1, 53-62
CrossRef19
Emily S. Jungheim, Ginny L. Ryan, Eric D. Levens, Alexandra F. Cunningham, George A. Macones, Kenneth R. Carson, Angeline N. Beltsos, Randall R. Odem. (2010) Embryo transfer practices in the United States: a survey of clinics registered with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertility and Sterility 94:4, 1432-1436
CrossRef20
Jaro Wex-Wechowski, Ahmed M. Abou-Setta, Sandy Kildegaard Nielsen, Richard Kennedy. (2010) HP-HMG versus rFSH in treatments combining fresh and frozen IVF cycles: success rates and economic evaluation. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 21:2, 166-178
CrossRef21
DANIEL SPERLING. (2010) Commanding the “Be Fruitful and Multiply” Directive: Reproductive Ethics, Law, and Policy in Israel. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19:03, 363-371
CrossRef22
Ann V. Bell. (2010) Beyond (financial) accessibility: inequalities within the medicalisation of infertility. Sociology of Health & Illness 32:4, 631-646
CrossRef23
Melinda B. Henne, M. Kate Bundorf. (2010) The effects of competition on assisted reproductive technology outcomes. Fertility and Sterility 93:6, 1820-1830
CrossRef24
Ajay K. Nangia, Donald S. Likosky, Dongmei Wang. (2010) Access to assisted reproductive technology centers in the United States. Fertility and Sterility 93:3, 745-761
CrossRef25
Kaylen Silverberg, Dennis Meletiche, Gina Del Rosario. (2009) An employer's experience with infertility coverage: a case study. Fertility and Sterility 92:6, 2103-2105
CrossRef26
Robert J. Stillman, Kevin S. Richter, Nicole K. Banks, James R. Graham. (2009) Elective single embryo transfer: A 6-year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocyst transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertility and Sterility 92:6, 1895-1906
CrossRef27
JA Castilla, E Hernandez, Y Cabello, JL Navarro, J Hernandez, JL Gomez, N Pajuelo, J Marqueta, B Coroleu. (2009) Assisted reproductive technologies in public and private clinics. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 19:6, 872-878
CrossRef28
A.-N. Yli-Kuha, M. Gissler, R. Luoto, E. Hemminki. (2009) Success of infertility treatments in Finland in the period 1992–2005. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 144:1, 54-58
CrossRef29
Yaakov Rosenfeld, Avshalom Strulov. (2009) Improvement of accuracy of clinical reports—the case of IVF cycle rank. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 26:2-3, 99-103
CrossRef30
Malizia, Beth A., Hacker, Michele R., Penzias, Alan S., . (2009) Cumulative Live-Birth Rates after In Vitro Fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine 360:3, 236-243
Full Text31
Nicholas S. Macklon and, Bart C.J.M. Fauser. 2009. Medical Approaches to Ovarian Stimulation for Infertility. , 689-724.
CrossRef32
Mark D. Hornstein, Catherine Racowsky. 2009. Assisted Reproduction. , 725-757.
CrossRef33
Angela E Lin, Craig T Basson, Elizabeth Goldmuntz, Pilar L Magoulas, Deborah A McDermott, Donna M McDonald-McGinn, Elspeth McPherson, Colleen A Morris, Jacqueline Noonan, Catherine Nowak, Mary Ella Pierpont, Reed E Pyeritz, Alan F Rope, Elaine Zackai, Barbara R Pober. (2008) Adults with genetic syndromes and cardiovascular abnormalities: clinical history and management. Genetics in Medicine 10:7, 469-494
CrossRef34
A.M. van Peperstraten, W.L.D.M. Nelen, R.P.M.G Hermens, L. Jansen, E. Scheenjes, D.D.M. Braat, R.P.T.M. Grol, J.A.M. Kremer. (2008) Why don't we perform elective single embryo transfer? A qualitative study among IVF patients and professionals. Human Reproduction 23:9, 2036-2042
CrossRef35
José L. Navarro, José A. Castilla, Luis Martínez, Elisa Hernández, Juan Fontes. (2008) Coverage and current practice patterns regarding assisted reproduction techniques. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 138:1, 3-9
CrossRef36
Joseph C. Isaacs. (2008) Infertility coverage is good business. Fertility and Sterility 89:5, 1049-1052
CrossRef37
Justin S Han, Robert E Brannigan. (2008) Donor insemination and infertility: what general urologists need to know. Nature Clinical Practice Urology 5:3, 151-158
CrossRef38
Melinda B. Henne, M. Kate Bundorf. (2008) Insurance mandates and trends in infertility treatments. Fertility and Sterility 89:1, 66-73
CrossRef39
Anna-Niina Terävä, Mika Gissler, Elina Hemminki, Riitta Luoto. (2008) Infertility and the use of infertility treatments in Finland: Prevalence and socio-demographic determinants 1992–2004. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 136:1, 61-66
CrossRef40
Mark Connolly, Kathleen De Vrieze, Willem Ombelet, Dirk Schneider, Craig Currie. (2008) A cost per live birth comparison of HMG and rFSH randomized trials. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 17:6, 756-763
CrossRef41
Judy E. Stern, Marcelle I. Cedars, Tarun Jain, Nancy A. Klein, C. Martin Beaird, David A. Grainger, William E. Gibbons. (2007) Assisted reproductive technology practice patterns and the impact of embryo transfer guidelines in the United States. Fertility and Sterility 88:2, 275-282
CrossRef42
Jain, Tarun, Gupta, Ruchi S., . (2007) Trends in the Use of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 357:3, 251-257
Full Text43
Linda M Frazier, David A Grainger, Bruce L Tjaden. (2007) Risk communication for patients seeking IVF. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2:4, 489-500
CrossRef44
J. Farley Ordovensky Staniec, Natalie J. Webb. (2007) Utilization of Infertility Services: How Much Does Money Matter?. Health Services Research 42:3p1, 971-989
CrossRef45
L SCHMIDT. (2007) Effects of infertility insurance mandates on fertility. Journal of Health Economics 26:3, 431-446
CrossRef46
Blair Johnson, Wendy Chavkin. (2007) Policy Efforts to Prevent ART-Related Preterm Birth. Maternal and Child Health Journal 11:3, 219-225
CrossRef47
Esther MEW Heijnen, Marinus JC Eijkemans, Cora De Klerk, Suzanne Polinder, Nicole GM Beckers, Ellen R Klinkert, Frank J Broekmans, Jan Passchier, Egbert R Te Velde, Nick S Macklon, Bart CJM Fauser. (2007) A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. The Lancet 369:9563, 743-749
CrossRef48
Van Voorhis, Bradley J., . (2007) In Vitro Fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine 356:4, 379-386
Full Text49
François Bissonnette, Jean Cohen, John Collins, Lisa Cowan, Sherry Dale, Sandra Dill, Calvin Greene, Mathias Gysler, Beverly Hanck, Edward Hughes, Arthur Leader, Sarah McDonald, Michael Marrin, Renée Martin, Jason Min, David Mortimer, Sharon Mortimer, Jocelyn Smith, Benjamin Tsang, Dean van Vugt, Albert Yuzpe. (2007) Incidence and complications of multiple gestation in Canada: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 14:6, 773-790
CrossRef50
JW van der Steeg, P Steures, MJC Eijkemans, JDF Habbema, PMM Bossuyt, PGA Hompes, F van der Veen, BWJ Mol. (2006) Do clinical prediction models improve concordance of treatment decisions in reproductive medicine?. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 113:7, 825-831
CrossRef51
Tsung-Hsien Lee, Chin-Der Chen, Yi-Yi Tsai, Li-Jung Chang, Hong-Nerng Ho, Yu-Shih Yang. (2006) Embryo quality is more important for younger women whereas age is more important for older women with regard to in vitro fertilization outcome and multiple pregnancy. Fertility and Sterility 86:1, 64-69
CrossRef52
Nicole M. Bellows, Helen Ann Halpin, Sara B. McMenamin. (2006) State-Mandated Benefit Review Laws. Health Services Research 41:3p2, 1104-1123
CrossRef53
Marianne Bitler, Lucie Schmidt. (2006) Health disparities and infertility: impacts of state-level insurance mandates. Fertility and Sterility 85:4, 858-865
CrossRef54
Tarun Jain. (2006) Socioeconomic and racial disparities among infertility patients seeking care. Fertility and Sterility 85:4, 876-881
CrossRef55
Lynn White, Julia McQuillan, Arthur L. Greil. (2006) Explaining disparities in treatment seeking: the case of infertility. Fertility and Sterility 85:4, 853-857
CrossRef56
David Hepner, Bhavani Shankar Kodali, Scott Segal. 2006. Pregnancy and Complications of Pregnancy. , 547-581.
CrossRef57
Bradley J. Van Voorhis. (2006) Outcomes From Assisted Reproductive Technology. Obstetrics & Gynecology 107:1, 183-200
CrossRef58
Gary S. Nakhuda, Mark V. Sauer. (2005) Addressing the Growing Problem of Multiple Gestations Created by Assisted Reproductive Therapies. Seminars in Perinatology 29:5, 355-362
CrossRef59
Tarun Jain, Mark D. Hornstein. (2005) Disparities in access to infertility services in a state with mandated insurance coverage. Fertility and Sterility 84:1, 221-223
CrossRef60
Bart CJM Fauser, Paul Devroey, Nick S Macklon. (2005) Multiple birth resulting from ovarian stimulation for subfertility treatment. The Lancet 365:9473, 1807-1816
CrossRef61
Lucie Schmidt. (2005) Infertility Insurance Mandates and Fertility. American Economic Review 95:2, 204-208
CrossRef62
Peter G. McGovern, Amaury J. Llorens, Joan H. Skurnick, Gerson Weiss, Laura T. Goldsmith. (2004) Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer or gamete intrafallopian transfer: A meta-analysis. Fertility and Sterility 82:6, 1514-1520
CrossRef63
Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli. (2004) 'Cheaper than a newcomer': on the social production of IVF policy in Israel. Sociology of Health and Illness 26:7, 897-924
CrossRef64
Alicia Armstrong, Adrienne B Neithardt, Ruben Alvero, Fady I Sharara, Mark Bush, James Segars. (2004) The role of fallopian tube anastomosis in training fellows: A survey of current reproductive endocrinology fellows and practitioners. Fertility and Sterility 82:2, 495-497
CrossRef65
(2004) Trends in Assisted Reproductive Technology. New England Journal of Medicine 351:4, 398-399
Full Text66
Jain, Tarun, Missmer, Stacey A., Hornstein, Mark D., . (2004) Trends in Embryo-Transfer Practice and in Outcomes of the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 350:16, 1639-1645
Full Text67
Eli Y. Adashi, Melinda Nebeker Ekins, Yvette LaCoursiere. (2004) On the discharge of Hippocratic obligations: Challenges and opportunities. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 190:4, 885-893
CrossRef68
Jie He, Deborah A. McDermott, Yan Song, Fred Gilbert, Isaac Kligman, Craig T. Basson. (2004) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of human congenital heart malformation and Holt-Oram syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics 126A:1, 93-98
CrossRef69
Meredith A Reynolds, Laura A Schieve, Gary Jeng, Herbert B Peterson. (2003) Does insurance coverage decrease the risk for multiple births associated with assisted reproductive technology?. Fertility and Sterility 80:1, 16-23
CrossRef70
Tarun Jain, Mark D. Hornstein. (2003) To pay or not to pay. Fertility and Sterility 80:1, 27-29
CrossRef71
David Frankfurter. (2003) To insure or not to insure: that is the question. Fertility and Sterility 80:1, 24-26
CrossRef72
(2003) Insurance Coverage and Outcomes of in Vitro Fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine 348:10, 958-959
Full Text73
Eli Y Adashi, Pedro N Barri, Richard Berkowitz, Peter Braude, Elizabeth Bryan, Judith Carr, Jean Cohen, John Collins, Paul Devroey, René Frydman, David Gardner, Marc Germond, Jan Gerris, Luca Gianaroli, Lars Hamberger, Colin Howles, Howard Jones, Bruno Lunenfeld, Andrew Pope, Meredith Reynolds, Zev Rosenwaks, Laura A Schieve, Gamal I Serour, Françoise Shenfield, Allan Templeton, André Van Steirteghem, Lucinda Veeck, Ulla-Britt Wennerholm. (2003) Infertility therapy-associated multiple pregnancies (births): an ongoing epidemic. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 7:5, 515-542
CrossRef74
Guzick, David S., . (2002) Should Insurance Coverage for in Vitro Fertilization Be Mandated?. New England Journal of Medicine 347:9, 686-688
Full Text
- Letters
