The power of one and its cost

Robert J Norman
Med J Aust 2011; 195 (10): . || doi: 10.5694/mja11.11283
Published online: 21 November 2011

The case for continued public funding of IVF using single embryo transfer

Assisted reproductive technologies, including in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), are now mainstream treatments in Australia, strongly supported by public opinion and accessible to most patients via adequate Medicare funding. Over the past 30 years, the growth in uptake of IVF in this country has been remarkable, with nearly 4% of all live births resulting from this mode of conception.1 This is associated with a loss of stigma surrounding infertility and the increased acceptability of IVF as a treatment option. Technologies such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection, use of donor gametes and embryos, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, improved access through an expansion of clinics, and the rapid commercialisation of the industry have all combined to expand services available to patients.

  • 1 Robinson Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA.
  • 2 Fertility SA, Adelaide, SA.

Competing interests:

I and my institution have received research and travel grants and honoraria from companies producing gonadotrophin hormones used in IVF. I am a shareholder in a reproductive medicine company, Fertility SA.

  • 1. Wang YA, Macaldowie A, Hayward I, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2009. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2011. (AIHW Cat. No. PER 51; Assisted Reproduction Technology Series No. 15.)
  • 2. Connolly MP, Hoorens S, Chambers GM; ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force. The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Hum Reprod Update 2010; 16: 603-613.
  • 3. Sutcliffe AG, Ludwig M. Outcome of assisted reproduction. Lancet 2007; 370: 351-359.
  • 4. McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 341: c6945.
  • 5. Chambers GM, Illingworth PJ, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproductive technology: public funding and the voluntary shift to single embryo transfer in Australia. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 594-598. <MJA full text>
  • 6. Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Mol Hum Reprod 2008; 14: 703-710.
  • 7. Nygren KG, Sullivan E, Zegers-Hoschschild F, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) world report: assisted reproductive technology 2003. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 229-2222.
  • 8. Griffiths A, Dyer SM, Lord SJ, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of in-vitro fertilization by maternal age and number of treatment attempts. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 924-931.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

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

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.