Literature DB >> 21905150

The effects of insurance mandates on choices and outcomes in infertility treatment markets.

Barton H Hamilton1, Brian McManus.   

Abstract

For the 10% to 15% of American married couples who experience reproductive problems, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is the leading technologically advanced treatment procedure. However, IVF's expense may prevent many couples from receiving treatment, and those who are treated may take an overly aggressive approach to reduce the probability of failure. Aggressive treatment, which occurs through an increase in the number of embryos transferred during IVF, can lead to medically dangerous multiple births. We evaluated the principle policy proposal-insurance mandates-for improving IVF access and outcomes. We used data from US markets during 1995-2003 to show that broad insurance mandates for IVF result in not only large increases in treatment access but also significantly less aggressive treatment. More limited insurance mandates, which may apply to a subset of insurers or provide weaker guidelines for insurer behavior, generally have little effect on IVF markets.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21905150     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1776

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  19 in total

1.  Contraception Use, Abortions, and Births: The Effect of Insurance Mandates.

Authors:  Karen Mulligan
Journal:  Demography       Date:  2015-08

2.  Assisted reproductive technology use, embryo transfer practices, and birth outcomes after infertility insurance mandates: New Jersey and Connecticut.

Authors:  Sara Crawford; Sheree L Boulet; Denise J Jamieson; Carol Stone; Jewel Mullen; Dmitry M Kissin
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Does Spinal Analgesia have Advantage over General Anesthesia for Achieving Success in In-Vitro Fertilization?

Authors:  Shahrzad Aghaamoo; Azra Azmoodeh; Fardin Yousefshahi; Katayon Berjis; Farahnazsadat Ahmady; Kamran Qods; Majid Mirmohammadkhani
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2014-03

4.  Embryo transfer practices and perinatal outcomes by insurance mandate status.

Authors:  Sheree L Boulet; Sara Crawford; Yujia Zhang; Saswati Sunderam; Bruce Cohen; Dana Bernson; Patricia McKane; Marie A Bailey; Denise J Jamieson; Dmitry M Kissin
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  Disparities in Assisted Reproductive Technology Utilization by Race and Ethnicity, United States, 2014: A Commentary.

Authors:  Ada C Dieke; Yujia Zhang; Dmitry M Kissin; Wanda D Barfield; Sheree L Boulet
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Ethnicity and assisted reproductive technologies.

Authors:  Alicia Armstrong; Torie C Plowden
Journal:  Clin Pract (Lond)       Date:  2012-11-01

7.  Infertility evaluation and treatment among women in the United States.

Authors:  Lawrence M Kessler; Benjamin M Craig; Shayne M Plosker; Damon R Reed; Gwendolyn P Quinn
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-07-10       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  Condition, disease, disability: how the label used to describe infertility may affect public support for fertility treatment coverage.

Authors:  Abigail C Mancuso; Karen M Summers; Rebecca Chung; Ginny L Ryan; Aaron M Scherer
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  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

10.  Decision making about infertility treatment: does unlimited access lead to inappropriate treatment?

Authors:  Evan R Myers
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2016-06-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.