Literature DB >> 19625316

The impact of introducing patient co-payments in Germany on the use of IVF and ICSI: a price-elasticity of demand assessment.

M P Connolly1, G Griesinger, W Ledger, M J Postma.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Authorities concerned by rising healthcare costs have a tendency to target reproductive treatments because of the perception that infertility is a low priority. In 2004 German health authorities introduced a 50% co-payment for patients, in an effort to save cost. We explored the impact of this pricing policy on the utilization of reproductive treatments in Germany.
METHODS: Using aggregated annual in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle data in Germany, we evaluated the relationship between changes in the number of cycles in relation to changes in costs faced by consumers following the introduction of a patient co-payment from 'no fees' to 1500-2000 euros by estimating the short-run price-elasticity of demand. The impact of introducing patient co-payments for IVF/ICSI on the likelihood of switching to other low-cost fertility treatments was evaluated using the cross-price elasticity methodology. RESULTS The reduction in demand for IVF and ICSI cycles in the year following the introduction of patient co-payments resulted in elasticities of -0.41 and -0.34, respectively. The price-elasticity for the combined reduction of IVF/ICSI in relation to the co-payment was estimated to be -0.36. The cross-price elasticity for clomifene was close to zero (-0.01) suggesting that demand for these interventions are independent of each other and no substitution occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: We report price elasticities for IVF and ICSI of -0.41 and -0.34 after introducing a 500-2000 euros co-payment. These findings likely represent short-run elasticities that are likely to vary over time as factors that influence the supply and demand for fertility treatments change.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19625316     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep260

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  6 in total

1.  Utilization of infertility treatments: the effects of insurance mandates.

Authors:  Marianne P Bitler; Lucie Schmidt
Journal:  Demography       Date:  2012-02

2.  Expensive but worth it: older parents' attitudes and opinions about the costs and insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Robert D Nachtigall; Kirstin MacDougall; Anne C Davis; Yewoubdar Beyene
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2011-11-25       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  What Features of Fertility Treatment do Patients Value? Price Elasticity and Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Elena Keller; Willings Botha; Georgina M Chambers
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 3.686

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

Authors:  Georgina M Chambers; Van Phuong Hoang; Rong Zhu; Peter J Illingworth
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Use of assisted reproductive technologies before and after the Artificial Reproduction Act in Taiwan.

Authors:  Jason C Hsu; Yu-Chi Su; Bo-Yun Tang; Christine Y Lu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Out-of-pocket payment and patients' treatment choice for assisted reproductive technology by household income: a conjoint analysis using an online social research panel in Japan.

Authors:  Eri Maeda; Seung Chik Jwa; Yukiyo Kumazawa; Kazuki Saito; Arisa Iba; Ayako Yanagisawa-Sugita; Akira Kuwahara; Hidekazu Saito; Yukihiro Terada; Takashi Fukuda; Osamu Ishihara; Yasuki Kobayashi
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 2.908

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.