Connect
MJA
MJA

Assisted reproductive technology: public funding and the voluntary shift to single embryo transfer in Australia

Georgina M Chambers, Peter J Illingworth and Elizabeth A Sullivan
Med J Aust 2011; 195 (10): 594-598. || doi: 10.5694/mja10.11448

Summary

Objectives: To calculate cost savings to the Australian federal and state governments from the reduction in twin and triplet birth rates for infants conceived by assisted reproductive technology (ART) since 2002, and to determine the number of ART treatment programs theoretically funded by means of these savings.

Design and setting: Costing model using data from the Australia and New Zealand Assisted Reproduction Database, the National Perinatal Data Collection and Medicare Australia on ART treatment cycles undertaken in Australia between 2002 and 2008.

Main outcome measures: Annual savings in maternal and infant inpatient birth-admission costs resulting from the reduction in ART multiple birth rate; theoretical number of ART treatment programs funded and infants born by means of these savings.

Results: The reduction in the ART multiple birth rate from 18.8% in 2002 to 8.6% in 2008 resulted in estimated savings to government of $47.6 million in birth-admission costs alone. Theoretically, these savings funded 7042 ART treatment programs comprising one fresh plus one frozen embryo transfer cycle, equating to the birth of 2841 babies. Fifty-five per cent of the increased use of ART services since 2002 has been theoretically funded by the reduction in multiple birth infants.

Conclusions: Against a backdrop of supportive public funding of ART in Australia, a voluntary shift to single embryo transfer by fertility clinicians and ART patients has resulted in substantial savings in hospital costs. Much of the growth in ART use has been theoretically cross-subsidised by the move to safer embryo transfer practices.

  • Georgina M Chambers1
  • Peter J Illingworth2,3
  • Elizabeth A Sullivan1

  • 1 Perinatal and Reproductive Epidemiology Research Unit, School of Women’s and Children’s Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.
  • 2 Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
  • 3 IVFAustralia, Sydney, NSW.

Correspondence: g.chambers@unsw.edu.au

Competing interests:

Georgina Chambers is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Postdoctoral Research Fellow funded through an ARC Linkage Grant (LP 100200165). The ARC partner organisations are IVFAustralia, Melbourne IVF and Queensland Fertility Group (Virtus Health). Peter Illingworth is a shareholder of Virtus Health and Medical Director of IVFAustralia.

  • 1. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. EIM Consortium. Focus on Reproduction 2010; (Sep): 17. http://www.eshre.eu/binarydata.aspx?type=doc&sessionId=l32czevvuk1dwrrydg1c4p3m/Eshre_Sep_2010.pdf (accessed Sep 2011).
  • 2. Wang YA, Chambers GM, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2008. Canberra: AIHW, 2010. (AIHW Cat. No. PER 49.)
  • 3. Elster N; Institute for Science, Law, and Technology Working Group on Reproductive Technology. Less is more: the risks of multiple births. Fertil Steril 2000; 74: 617-623.
  • 4. Crosignani PG, Rubin BL; European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Capri Workshop Group. Multiple gestation pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1856-1864.
  • 5. Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DAM, Donker D, Keirse MJNC. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 2004; 328: 261.
  • 6. Chambers GM, Ho MT, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproductive technology treatment costs of a live birth: an age-stratified cost-outcome study of treatment in Australia. Med J Aust 2006; 184: 155-158. <MJA full text>
  • 7. Chambers GM, Sullivan EA, Ishihara O, et al. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2281-2294.
  • 8. Chambers GM, Chapman MG, Grayson N, et al. Babies born after ART treatment cost more than non-ART babies: a cost analysis of inpatient birth-admission costs of singleton and multiple gestation pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 3108-3115.
  • 9. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Funding sources for admitted patients in Australian hospitals, 2005–06. Canberra: AIHW, 2009. (AIHW Cat. No. HWE 44.)
  • 10. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Consumer Price Index, Australia. Canberra: ABS. (ABS Cat. No. 6401.0.) http://www.abs.gov.au (accessed Aug 2011).
  • 11. Laws PJ, Sullivan EA. Australia’s mothers and babies 2002. Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, 2004. (AIHW Cat. No. PER 28; Perinatal statistics series no. 15.)
  • 12. Laws PJ, Li Z, Sullivan EA. Australia’s mothers and babies 2008. Canberra: AIHW, 2010. (AIHW Cat. No. PER 50; Perinatal statistics series no. 24.)
  • 13. Henderson J, Hockley C, Petrou S, et al. Economic implications of multiple births: inpatient hospital costs in the first 5 years of life. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004; 89: F542-F545.
  • 14. Petrou S, Sach T, Davidson L. The long-term costs of preterm birth and low birth weight: results of a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev 2001; 27: 97-115.
  • 15. Stevenson RC, McCabe CJ, Pharoah PO, Cooke RW. Cost of care for a geographically determined population of low birthweight infants to age 8-9 years. I. Children without disability. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1996; 74: F114-F117.
  • 16. Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, et al. Belgian legislation and the effect of elective single embryo transfer on IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10: 436-441.
  • 17. Karlström PO, Bergh C. Reducing the number of embryos transferred in Sweden-impact on delivery and multiple birth rates. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2202-2207.
  • 18. Min JK, Hughes E, Young D, et al; Joint Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada-Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. Elective single embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32: 363-377.
  • 19. Fertility Society of Australia Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. Code of practice for assisted reproductive technology units (revised October 2010). Melbourne: FSA, 2010. http://www.fertilitysociety.com.au/wp-content/uploads/201011201-final-rtac-cop.pdf (accessed Sep 2011).
  • 20. Maheshwari A, Griffiths S, Bhattacharya S. Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17: 107-120.
  • 21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2007 Assisted reproductive technology success rates: national summary and fertility clinic reports. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2009.
  • 22. de Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 1851-1862.
  • 23. Henne MB, Bundorf MK. Insurance mandates and trends in infertility treatments. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 66-73.
  • 24. Jain T, Harlow BL, Hornstein MD. Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 661-666.
  • 25. Martin JR, Bromer JG, Sakkas D, Patrizio P. Insurance coverage and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a US perspective. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 964-969.
  • 26. Reynolds MA, Schieve LA, Jeng G, Peterson HB. Does insurance coverage decrease the risk for multiple births associated with assisted reproductive technology? Fertil Steril 2003; 80: 16-23.
  • 27. Stillman RJ, Richter KS, Banks NK, Graham JR. Elective single embryo transfer: a 6-year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocyst transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 1895-1906.
  • 28. Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Ozturk O, et al. Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (2): CD003416.
  • 29. Murray S, Shetty A, Rattray A, et al. A randomized comparison of alternative methods of information provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 911-916.
  • 30. Ryan GL, Zhang SH, Dokras A, et al. The desire of infertile patients for multiple births. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 500-504.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.