Insurance coverage and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a US perspective

被引:64
作者
Martin, J. Ryan [1 ]
Bromer, Jason G. [1 ]
Sakkas, Denny [1 ]
Patrizio, Pasquale [1 ]
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Sci, Yale Fertil Ctr, New Haven, CT 06510 USA
关键词
Insurance; mandate; IVF; outcomes; embryos transferred; multiple pregnancies; SINGLE-EMBRYO-TRANSFER; ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY; MULTIPLE GESTATION; CHILDREN BORN; BIRTH; IVF; DELIVERY; NUMBER; TRENDS; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.06.030
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To compare the impact of mandated IVF insurance coverage on ET practices and resulting multiple pregnancy rates. Design: Retrospective analysis of all fresh, nondonor IVF cycles performed in the United States in 2006. Setting: United States. Patient(s): A total of 91,753 fresh, nondonor IVF cycles in the United States. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Pregnancy rate, live-birth rate, embryos transferred, multiple pregnancy rate. Result(s): Overall, nonmandated states had a significantly higher pregnancy rate (38.8% vs. 35%) and live-birth rate (32.2% vs. 29.1%) than mandated states. Nonmandated states also had a significantly higher twin rate (28.1% vs. 26%) and triplet rate (3.9% vs. 3.4%). The average number of embryos transferred was also significantly higher in nonmandated states (2.6 vs. 2.2). These findings were more pronounced in the <35 and 35-37 age groups. Conclusion(s): In the last 8 years, despite a reduction in the average number of embryos transferred and multiple pregnancy rates, there is a continued association between mandated IVF coverage, the transfer of fewer embryos, and lower rates of multiple pregnancies and births, particularly in the younger age groups. (Fertil Steril (R) 2011; 95: 964-9. (C) 2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)
引用
收藏
页码:964 / 969
页数:6
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
Abma J C, 1997, Vital Health Stat 23, P1
[2]   Regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in the United States [J].
Adamson, D .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2002, 78 (05) :932-942
[3]  
Adamson GD, 2009, SELF REGULATION IMPL, P251
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2006 ASSISTED REPROD
[5]  
ASRM, STAT INF INS LAWS
[6]   Economics of assisted reproductive technologies [J].
Ata, Baris ;
Seli, Emre .
CURRENT OPINION IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 22 (03) :183-188
[7]   Single embryo transfer: a mini-review [J].
Bergh, C .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2005, 20 (02) :323-327
[8]   Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982-95:: a retrospective cohort study [J].
Bergh, T ;
Ericson, A ;
Hillensjö, T ;
Nygren, KG ;
Wennerholm, UB .
LANCET, 1999, 354 (9190) :1579-1585
[9]   Assessment of embryo viability in assisted reproductive technology: shortcomings of current approaches and the emerging role of metabolomics [J].
Bromer, Jason G. ;
Seli, Emre .
CURRENT OPINION IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 20 (03) :234-241
[10]   Cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization [J].
Collins, J .
SEMINARS IN REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, 2001, 19 (03) :279-289