Why We Should All Pay for Fertility Treatment:An Argument from Ethics and Policy

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

In the United States, economic, racial, ethnic, geographic, and other disparities prevent access to fertility treatment and affect treatment outcomes. This opinion examines the factors that contribute to these disparities, proposes actions to address them, and replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2015.

Fertility-a human right worthy of mandated insurance coverage: the evolution, limitations, and future of access to care

We review the history, current status, and potential future of state infertility mandates and focus on the business implications of mandates and on the inadequacies and reproductive injustice resulting from gaps between legislative intent and practical implementation. Nineteen states have passed laws that require insurers to either cover or offer coverage for infertility diagnoses and treatment. The qualifications for coverage, extent of coverage, and exemptions vary drastically from one state to another, resulting in deficiencies in access to care even within mandated states for certain groups, such as single individuals, patients in same-sex relationships, and patients pursuing fertility preservation. Although insurance coverage of fertility services in the United States has expanded as an increasing number of states have enacted infertility mandates, significant gaps in implementation and access remain even among states with existing mandates. Provider, patient, and legislative advocacy is warranted in the name of reproductive justice to expand insurance coverage and, in turn, maximize reproductive outcomes, which have been shown to improve as financial barriers are lifted.

In vitro fertilisation with preimplantation genetic testing: the need for expanded insurance coverage

Technological advances in genetic testing have enabled prospective parents to learn about their risk of passing a genetic condition to their future children. One option for those who want to ensure that their biological children do not inherit a genetic condition is to create embryos through in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and use a technique called preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) to screen embryos for genetic abnormalities before implantation. Unfortunately, due to its high cost, IVF-with-PGT is out of reach for the vast majority of Americans. This article addresses an issue that has been underexplored in the medical ethics literature: the lack of insurance coverage for IVF-with-PGT.Within the US system, a key concept in insurance is that of medically necessary care, which broadly consists of diagnostic services and treatment services. In this article, I argue that IVF-with-PGT could be classified as either a diagnostic service or as a treatment service. To make this case, I show that IVF-with-PGT is similar to other types of services that are often covered by US insurance providers. In light of these similarities, I argue that the current system is inconsistent with respect to what is-and is not-covered by insurance. To promote consistency and fairness in coverage, like cases should be treated alike-starting with greater coverage for IVF-with-PGT.

Autonomy in Tension: Reproduction, Technology, and Justice

Respect for autonomy is a central value in reproductive ethics, but it can be a challenge to fulfill and is sometimes an outright puzzle to understand. If a woman requests the transfer of two, three, or four embryos during fertility treatment, is that request truly autonomous, and do clinicians disrespect her if they question that decision or refuse to carry it out? Add a commitment to justice to the mix, and the challenge can become more complex still. Is it unfair for insurance policies to exclude from coverage the costs of giving fertility to those who lack it or restoring fertility in those who have lost it? What does "just reproduction" look like in the face of multifarious understandings of both justice and autonomy and in light of increasingly complex and costly reproductive technologies? In today's dialogue about reproduction, medicine, and ethics in the United States, old ethical issues-such as whether women ought to be allowed to access pregnancy termination-are more contested than they have been in decades, while new technologies-like those used to edit the genes of human embryos-suggest that our species could face unprecedented questions about who should exist. As we considered the discussions accompanying these issues and contemplated a special report responding to them, we found ourselves consistently circling back to two ethical commitments: respect for autonomy and the pursuit of justice. As one of the nine essays in this collection asks, why should certain women receive help to establish a pregnancy while others are thrown in jail when they miscarry or their child is stillborn? Respect for autonomy is required where individuals have the ability to make fully informed and voluntary choices. Yet does respecting autonomy require acceding to all the choices of patients or consumers of medical care? We consider these and related questions in this special report from the Hastings Center Report.

The Medical Nonnecessity of In Vitro Fertilization

Debate has raged in Canada recently over whether in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be funded through public health insurance. Such a move would require that the provinces classify IVF as a medically necessary service. In this paper, I defend the position I have taken publicly—especially in Ontario, my own province—that IVF is not medically necessary. I contend that, by funding IVF on grounds of medical necessity, governments like Ontario's violate their commitments to equality and fairness, and cause harm. They do the last by suggesting that the lives of people who forgo procreation, and perhaps have children in other ways (e.g., through adoption), will be stunted.

Embryo transfer practices and perinatal outcomes by insurance mandate status

OBJECTIVE

To use linked assisted reproductive technology (ART) surveillance and birth certificate data to compare ET practices and perinatal outcomes for a state with a comprehensive mandate requiring coverage of IVF services versus states without a mandate.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Live-birth deliveries ascertained from linked 2007-2009 National ART Surveillance System and birth certificate data for a state with an insurance mandate (Massachusetts) and two states without a mandate (Florida and Michigan).

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Number of embryos transferred, multiple births, low birth weight, preterm delivery.

RESULT(S)

Of the 230,038 deliveries in the mandate state and 1,026,804 deliveries in the nonmandate states, 6,651 (2.9%) and 8,417 (0.8%), respectively, were conceived by ART. Transfer of three or more embryos was more common in nonmandate states, although the effect was attenuated for women 35 years or older (33.6% vs. 39.7%; adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.81) versus women younger than 35 (7.0% vs. 26.9%; adjusted RR, 4.18; 95% CI, 2.74-6.36). Lack of an insurance mandate was positively associated with triplet/higher order deliveries (1.0% vs. 2.3%; adjusted RR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.81-3.28), preterm delivery (22.6% vs. 30.7%; adjusted RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.20-1.42), and low birth weight (22.3% vs. 29.5%; adjusted RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.17-1.40).

CONCLUSION(S)

Compared with nonmandate states, the mandate state had higher overall rates of ART use. Among ART births, lack of an infertility insurance mandate was associated with increased risk for adverse perinatal outcomes.