Cargando…

A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government

BACKGROUND: Almost all assisted reproductive technology (ART) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatments performed in Australia are subsidized through the Australian Government’s universal insurance scheme, Medicare. In 2010 restrictions on the amount Medicare paid in benefits for these treatmen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chambers, Georgina M, Hoang, Van Phuong, Zhu, Rong, Illingworth, Peter J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22682009
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-142
_version_ 1782245365905358848
author Chambers, Georgina M
Hoang, Van Phuong
Zhu, Rong
Illingworth, Peter J
author_facet Chambers, Georgina M
Hoang, Van Phuong
Zhu, Rong
Illingworth, Peter J
author_sort Chambers, Georgina M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Almost all assisted reproductive technology (ART) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatments performed in Australia are subsidized through the Australian Government’s universal insurance scheme, Medicare. In 2010 restrictions on the amount Medicare paid in benefits for these treatments were introduced, increasing patient out-of-pocket payments for fresh and frozen embryo ART cycles and IUI. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the policy on access to treatment, savings in Medicare benefits and the number of ART conceived children not born. METHODS: Pooled quarterly cross-sectional Medicare data from 2007 and 2011 where used to construct a series of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models to evaluate the impact of the policy on access to treatment by women of different ages. Government savings in the 12 months after the policy was calculated as the difference between the predicted and observed Medicare benefits paid. RESULTS: After controlling for underlying time trends and unobserved factors the policy change reduced the number of fresh embryo cycles by almost 8600 cycles over 12 months (a 16% reduction in cycles, p < 0.001). The policy effect was greatest on women aged 40 years and older (38% reduction in cycles, p < 0.001). Younger women engaged in relatively more anticipatory behaviour by bringing forward their fresh cycles to 2009. Frozen embryo cycles, which are approximately one quarter of the cost of a fresh cycle, were only marginally impacted by the policy. Utilisation of IUI cycles were not impacted by the policy. After adjusting for anticipatory behaviour, $76 million in Medicare benefits was saved in the 12 months after the policy change (0.47% of annual Medicare benefits). Between 1200 and 1500 ART conceived children were not born in 2010 as a consequence of the policy. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the policy resulted in a significant reduction in fresh ART cycles in the first 15 months after its introduction. Further evaluation on the long term impact of the policy with regard access to treatment and on clinical practice, particularly the number of embryos transferred, is crucial to ensuring equitable access to fertility treatment and the health and welfare of ART children.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3464128
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34641282012-10-05 A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government Chambers, Georgina M Hoang, Van Phuong Zhu, Rong Illingworth, Peter J BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Almost all assisted reproductive technology (ART) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatments performed in Australia are subsidized through the Australian Government’s universal insurance scheme, Medicare. In 2010 restrictions on the amount Medicare paid in benefits for these treatments were introduced, increasing patient out-of-pocket payments for fresh and frozen embryo ART cycles and IUI. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the policy on access to treatment, savings in Medicare benefits and the number of ART conceived children not born. METHODS: Pooled quarterly cross-sectional Medicare data from 2007 and 2011 where used to construct a series of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models to evaluate the impact of the policy on access to treatment by women of different ages. Government savings in the 12 months after the policy was calculated as the difference between the predicted and observed Medicare benefits paid. RESULTS: After controlling for underlying time trends and unobserved factors the policy change reduced the number of fresh embryo cycles by almost 8600 cycles over 12 months (a 16% reduction in cycles, p < 0.001). The policy effect was greatest on women aged 40 years and older (38% reduction in cycles, p < 0.001). Younger women engaged in relatively more anticipatory behaviour by bringing forward their fresh cycles to 2009. Frozen embryo cycles, which are approximately one quarter of the cost of a fresh cycle, were only marginally impacted by the policy. Utilisation of IUI cycles were not impacted by the policy. After adjusting for anticipatory behaviour, $76 million in Medicare benefits was saved in the 12 months after the policy change (0.47% of annual Medicare benefits). Between 1200 and 1500 ART conceived children were not born in 2010 as a consequence of the policy. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the policy resulted in a significant reduction in fresh ART cycles in the first 15 months after its introduction. Further evaluation on the long term impact of the policy with regard access to treatment and on clinical practice, particularly the number of embryos transferred, is crucial to ensuring equitable access to fertility treatment and the health and welfare of ART children. BioMed Central 2012-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3464128/ /pubmed/22682009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-142 Text en Copyright ©2012 Chambers et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chambers, Georgina M
Hoang, Van Phuong
Zhu, Rong
Illingworth, Peter J
A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government
title A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government
title_full A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government
title_fullStr A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government
title_full_unstemmed A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government
title_short A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government
title_sort reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22682009
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-142
work_keys_str_mv AT chambersgeorginam areductioninpublicfundingforfertilitytreatmentaneconometricanalysisofaccesstotreatmentandsavingstogovernment
AT hoangvanphuong areductioninpublicfundingforfertilitytreatmentaneconometricanalysisofaccesstotreatmentandsavingstogovernment
AT zhurong areductioninpublicfundingforfertilitytreatmentaneconometricanalysisofaccesstotreatmentandsavingstogovernment
AT illingworthpeterj areductioninpublicfundingforfertilitytreatmentaneconometricanalysisofaccesstotreatmentandsavingstogovernment
AT chambersgeorginam reductioninpublicfundingforfertilitytreatmentaneconometricanalysisofaccesstotreatmentandsavingstogovernment
AT hoangvanphuong reductioninpublicfundingforfertilitytreatmentaneconometricanalysisofaccesstotreatmentandsavingstogovernment
AT zhurong reductioninpublicfundingforfertilitytreatmentaneconometricanalysisofaccesstotreatmentandsavingstogovernment
AT illingworthpeterj reductioninpublicfundingforfertilitytreatmentaneconometricanalysisofaccesstotreatmentandsavingstogovernment