Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-vmcqm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-14T23:53:03.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In search of real autonomy for fertility patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2014

Josephine Johnston*
Affiliation:
Director of Research & Research Scholar, The Hastings Center, Garrison, NY, USA
Michael K. Gusmano
Affiliation:
Research Scholar, The Hastings Center
Pasquale Patrizio
Affiliation:
Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Director, Yale Fertility Center, Yale School of Medicine, CT, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Josephine Johnston, LLB, MBHL, Director of Research & Research Scholar, The Hastings Center, 21 Malcolm Gordon Road, Garrison, NY 10524, USA. Email: johnstonj@thehastingscenter.org

Abstract

Nearly one in eight infants in the United States is born preterm. A variety of factors are associated with preterm birth, including multiplicity. In the United States fertility treatments are currently associated with high rates of multiplicity, but these rates could be reduced significantly if changes can be made to fertility treatment policy and practice. These include reducing the financial pressure on patients to prioritize pregnancy chances over safety by expanding insurance coverage and altering the way we calculate success rates and insurance benefits so that two consecutive single embryo transfers is equivalent to one double embryo transfer.

Type
Perspective
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2014), Q13: Should we have genetic testing? http://www.asrm.org/awards/index.aspx?id=7108 [23 May 2014].Google Scholar
Bissonnette, F., Phillips, S. J., Gunby, J., Holzer, H., Mahutte, N., St-Michel, P. and Kadoch, I. J. (2011), ‘Working to eliminate multiple pregnancies: a success story in Quebec’, Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23(4): 500504.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013), American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, 2011 Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report, Atlanta (GA): US Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.Google Scholar
Dickey, R. P. (2007), ‘The relative contribution of assisted reproductive technologies and ovulation induction to multiple births in the United States 5 years after the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology/American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommendation to limit the number of embryos transferred’, Fertility and Sterility, 88: 15541561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act (FCSRCA, or Public Law 102–493).Google Scholar
Forman, E. J., Hong, K., Ferry, K., et al. (2013), ‘In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial’, Fertility and Sterility, 100: 100107.Google Scholar
Gleicher, N. and Barad, D. (2008), ‘Arguments against elective single-embryo transfer’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 3: 481487.Google Scholar
Glinianaia, S. V., Rankin, J. and Colver, A. (2011), ‘Cerebral palsy rates by birth weight, gestation and severity in North of England, 1991--2000 singleton births’, Archives of Disease in Childhood, 96(2): 180185.Google Scholar
Gordts, S., Campo, R., Puttemans, P., Brosens, I., Valkenburg, M., Norre, J., Renier, M. and Coeman, D. (2005), ‘Belgian legislation and the effect of elective single embryo transfer on IVF outcome’, Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10(4): 436441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gouvernement du Québec (2013), ‘Québec Assisted Reproduction Program,’ http://sante.gouv.qc.ca/en/programmes-et-mesures-daide/programme-quebecois-de-procreation-assistee/fecondation-in-vitro/ [23 May 2014].Google Scholar
Hvidtjørn, D., Grove, J., Schendel, D. E., Vaeth, M., Ernst, E., Nielsen, L. F. and Thorsen, P. (2006), ‘Cerebral palsy among children born after in vitro fertilization: the role of preterm delivery – a population-based, cohort study’, Pediatrics, 118(2): 475482.Google Scholar
Jennings, P. K. and Callahan, J. C. (2001), ‘Multiple gestations: some public policy issues’, Health Care Analysis: HCA: Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy, 9(2): 167185. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11561995. 180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlström, P. O. and Bergh, C. (2007), ‘Reducing the number of embryos transferred in Sweden-impact on delivery and multiple birth rates’, Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 22(8): 22022207. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17562674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKay, A. P., Berg, C. J., King, J. C., Duran, C. and Chang, J. (2006), ‘Pregnancy-related mortality among women with multifetal pregnancies’, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 107(3): 563568.Google Scholar
Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E. and Osterman, M. J. (2012), ‘Three decades of twin births in the United States, 1980–2009’, NCHS Data Brief, (8): 1.Google Scholar
McLernon, D. J., Harrild, K., Bergh, C., Davies, M. J., De Neubourg, D., Dumoulin, J. C. M. and Bhattacharya, S. (2010), ‘Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials’, BMJ, 341.Google Scholar
Montag, M., Toth, B. and Strowitzki, T. (2013), ‘New approaches to embryo selection’, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 27: 539546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ombelet, W., De Sutter, P., Van der Elst, J. and Martens, G. (2005), ‘Multiple gestation and infertility treatment: registration, reflection and reaction – the Belgian project’, Human Reproduction Update, 11(1): 314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orentlicher, D. (2013), ‘Multiple embryo transfers: time for policy’, Hastings Center Report, 40(3): 12.Google Scholar
Ranji, U., Salganicoff, A., Stewart, A. M., Cox, M. and Doamekpor, L. (2009), ‘State Medicaid coverage of family planning services: summary of state survey findings’, Kaiser Family Health Foundation and George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8015.pdf [23 May 2014].Google Scholar
Sazonova, A., Källen, K., Thurin-Kjellberg, A., Wennerholm, U. B. and Bergh, C. (2012), ‘Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy’, Fertility and Sterility, 99(3): 731737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schieve, L. A., Devine, O., Boyle, C. A., Petrini, J. R. and Warner, L. (2009), ‘Estimation of the contribution of non-assisted reproductive technology ovulation stimulation fertility treatments to US singleton and multiple births’, American Journal of Epidemiology, 170: 13961407.Google Scholar
Solis, H. (2011), Report to Congress: Annual Report on Self-Insured Group Health Plan, Washington, DC: Department of Labor.Google Scholar
Van Landuyt, L., Verheyen, G., Tournaye, H., Camus, M., Devroey, P. and Van Steirteghem, A. (2006), ‘New Belgian embryo transfer policy leads to sharp decrease in multiple pregnancy rate’, Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 13(6): 765771.Google Scholar
Vélez, M. P., Connolly, M. P., Kadoch, I. J., Phillips, S. and Bissonnette, F. (2014), ‘Universal coverage of IVF pays off’, Human Reproduction, 29(6): 13131319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Z., Liu, J., Collins, G. S., Salem, S. A., Liu, X., Lyle, S. S., Peck, A. C., Sills, E. S. and Salem, R. D. (2012), ‘Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study’, Molecular Cytogenetics, 5: 18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed