An estimate of the cost of in vitro fertilization services in the United States in 1995

Collins, John A.; Bustillo, María; Visscher, Robert D.; Lawrence, Lynne D.

doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)57789-9

Cited by 112 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are rarely any costeffective studies for IVF only compared to IVF/PGS. The basic cost for IVF with monitoring and medications per cycle was estimated to be $6233 [160], $9226 [161], and $25,700 [162] in years 1995, 2001, and 2008, respectively. Patients with PGS indications usually require multiple IVF cycles.…”

Section: Complementary Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?

Agarwal

Nagy

2011

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite an ongoing debate over its efficacy, preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is increasingly being used to detect numerical chromosomal abnormalities in embryos to improve implantation rates after IVF. The main indications for the use of PGS in IVF treatments include advanced maternal age, repeated implantation failure, and recurrent pregnancy loss. The success of PGS is highly dependent on technical competence, embryo culture quality, and the presence of mosaicism in preimplantation embryos. Today, cleavage stage biopsy is the most commonly used method for screening preimplantation embryos for aneuploidy. However, blastocyst biopsy is rapidly becoming the more preferred method due to a decreased likelihood of mosaicism and an increase in the amount of DNA available for testing. Instead of using 9 to 12 chromosome FISH, a 24 chromosome detection by aCGH or SNP microarray will be used. Thus, it is advised that before attempting to perform PGS and expecting any benefit, extended embryo culture towards day 5/6 should be established and proven and the clinical staff should demonstrate competence with routine competency assessments. A properly designed randomized control trial is needed to test the potential benefits of these new developments.

show abstract

Section: Complementary Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?

Agarwal

Nagy

2011

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Work we have done in the past (5) along with the work of others (6) would indicate that with some restrictions, insurance coverage for IVF would have minimal impact on the cost of health insurance. Efforts must be made to make the public and insurance carriers aware of this fact in hope of expanding the availability of insurance coverage for the many couples who are in need of IVF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing patients’ decision not to repeat IVF

Goldfarb

Austin

Lisbona

et al. 1997

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women who did not pursue a second in vitro fertilization cycle after a failed cycle were surveyed. The major reason for not pursuing a second cyclewas financial.KEY WORDS: finance; in vitro fertilization; psychologic stress. ~TRODUCTIONIn vitro fertilization (IVF) is still generally considered to be the last step for couples who are being treated for infertility. There have been many studies regarding the stress of infertility and specifically the stress of IVF. Collins et aL (1) examined the stress associated with infertility reported by couples who were enrolling in an IVF program. Sixty-three percent of the women and 38% of the men expected that IVF treatment would be extremely stressful. Mahlstedt et al. (2) analyzed responses from 94 IVF patients. They found that 82% of the patients did not view the decision to enter the IVF program to be a difficult one and that upon entry to the program 56% of patients indicated they would repeat the IVF treatment if the initial procedure was not successful. Interestingly after the first IVF cycle, only 37% of couples planned to repeat the treatment. Factors they found that influenced patients' plans not to repeat IVF included emotional strain, medical barriers, and disruption of activities. We also have been interested in the attitudes of couples who do not pursue a second IVF cycle after an initial cycle is not successful and have in this study examined such couples.i Department of Ob/Gyn, University Hospitals of Cleveland, 11100Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106. MATERIALS AND METHODSQuestionnaires were sent to 54 couples who went through a single unsuccessful IVF cycle during the years 1990-1993 and who had not pursued a second cycle as of October 1995. Questionnaires were mailed to the last known address. If a response was not received in 3 weeks a telephone call was made in follow-up. Several of the questionnaires were returned undelivered, the couples having moved with no forwarding address available, DemographicsAt the time of the IVF procedure the women ranged in age from 29 to 40, with a mean age of 34.5 (SD, 3.5). Women were predominantly white (25 of 28). All women responding had at least a twelfth-grade education, with 17 to 28 being at least college graduates. Their spouses all had at least a twelfth-grade education as well, with 18 of 28 being at least college graduates. Nine of 28 women described their occupation as professional, and an equal number of men listed their occupation as professional. Length of infertility at the time of the IVF procedure ranged from 2 to 15 years, with a mean of 6.9 years (SD, 4.3 years). Twenty-four of the 28 women had no living children; the other 4 each had one. Five of the 28 women had had a voluntary termination in the past. MeasuresThe questionnaire included three sets of questions that attempted to determine the attitudes of couples who chose not to pursue a second cycle of IVE The 381

show abstract

“…The issue of spillover effects of mandates to (generally larger) self-insured firms is an important one that deserves further study. (Bartels, 1993;Collins et al, 1995;Neumann, 1997).…”

Section: A Factsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collins (2001) estimates a median price elasticity of demand such that a 10 percent reduction in price is associated with a 30 percent increase in cost, and in earlier work, Collins et al (1995) estimates the elasticity of demand to be between -2.2 and -4.3. These numbers are large compared to the average elasticity of demand for medical services of -0.1 to -0.2 calculated found in the Rand Health Insurance Experiment (Manning et al, 1987).…”

Section: A Factsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Efficiency of a Group-Specific Mandated Benefit Revisited: The Effect of Infertility Mandates

Lahey

2011

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in ABSTRACTThis paper examines the labor market effects of state health insurance mandates that increase the cost of employing a demographically identifiable group. State mandates requiring that health insurance plans cover infertility treatment raise the relative cost of insuring older women of child-bearing age. Empirically, wages in this group are unaffected, but their total labor input decreases. Workers do not value infertility mandates at cost, and so will not take wage cuts in exchange, leading employers to decrease their demand for this affected and identifiable group. Differences in the empirical effects of mandates found in the literature are explained by a model including variations in the elasticity of demand, moral hazard, ability to identify a group, and adverse selection. JEL Classification Codes: I18, J23, J13

show abstract

An estimate of the cost of in vitro fertilization services in the United States in 1995

Cited by 112 publications

References 14 publications

Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?

Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?

Factors influencing patients’ decision not to repeat IVF

The Efficiency of a Group-Specific Mandated Benefit Revisited: The Effect of Infertility Mandates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About