Who would have thunk:
"Australia and New Zealand have shown that in the right policy environment a voluntary change to SET practice is achievable" [my italics]Thus reducing maternal/child health risks. Seems like infertile people aren't too obsessed to make sensible decisions after all, just too underinsured.
Full article here.
Also, I am/was late catching up with the fact that Mel was the daily deal recently! Sorry I didn't get to tell you in time. I did read her book and it was fun.
Posts
3 Comments
Sadly, because there is little to (mostly) no health insurance coverage at all for IVF in the U.S. couples here are left with poor choices.
Thanks, too, Bea for your always insightful blog comments.
Read the original article a while back. Agree wholeheartedly, except that refining the cost of eSET to be even slightly less than DET would improve outcomes even further here, without significant cost to the gvt.
eSET is the goal. It saves the health system money- solidly proven flow on reduction in NICU costs that more than makes up for 'subsidising' IVF. Take note, US insurance companies.
You have it wrong and you are costing yourself millions.
G
I think eSET is certainly the most desirable goal. My experience with IF, IVF, and postpartum depression leads me to believe that a childless infertile couple are the last ones qualified to determine how many babies they can handle at once. Not a popular sentiment, but I stand by it. There was quite a backlash in the IF community to the book "Everything Conceivable" by Liza Mundy. It was terribly sad to see an obituary in the local paper last week -- at first I thought, "Gosh, that's a very long name," and then I noticed the commas -- and then I started counting. Quintuplet boys, all stillborn. (Granted, most very-high-order multiples are conceived on an IUI/stims cycle that should have been cancelled, not IVF.)
My RE was very particular about transferring no more than 2 embryos in the average under-35 patient, like myself, but all of the other REs in my area had average transfers of more than 3.0 embryos per cycle. Very disheartening.
It is all the more frustrating, then, that eSET is a long way from reality in the U.S., where IF insurance coverage varies wildly by employer and by state. Missouri, for instance, has no mandatory coverage, not even for mere diagnosis. And the state legislature is whining about mandated birth control coverage, so there's no chance in hell they will ever agree to IVF coverage. (They have also slashed therapy services for foster kids.) Across the river in Illinois, most residents are covered for for 3 IVF cycles.
Post a Comment