The first nationwide website survey of the availability and costs of medical and non-medical oocyte cryopreservation in Japan

Research question: How does the cost-related oocyte cryopreservation (OoC) vary by the facility in Japan, and what data is provided on the websites about OoC procedures?Design: Website survey. The websites of all 621 facilities that provide assistive reproductive technology registered in Japan were surveyed in 2021. Data included the rates of explicit statements regarding the provision of OoC for only medical reasons (medical only group) or non-medical reasons (non-medical group). Based on whether or not facilities that perform OoC clearly stated the cost on their websites, we compared the costs of OoC and annual storage cost between medical only and non-medical groups. Furthermore, we examined the stated number of OoC procedures performed and their clinical outcomes.Results: Of the 621 facilities, 146 (23.5%) clearly stated that they offer OoC on their websites. Of the 88 medical only groups and 58 non-medical groups, 24 (27.3%) and 42 (72.4%) clearly stated the OoC cost, and 27 (30.7%) and 44 (75.9%) clearly states the annual oocyte storage cost, respectively. The OoC costs were significantly higher for the non-medical group than in the medical group. In the medical only group, the annual storage cost remained almost the same regardless of the number of oocytes, while in the non-medical group, the annual storage cost was 2-3 times higher than in the medical only group. Only 16 facilities (16/146, 11.0%) had mentioned the number of OoC procedures, and five facilities (3.4%) provided information on the clinical outcomes after OoC.Conclusion: Costs related to OoC are higher for the non-medical group in Japan. In addition, the websites contain scant information on the costs and clinical outcomes of OoC.

Automated summary

This study surveyed the websites of 621 registered assisted reproductive technology facilities in Japan to examine the cost variation of oocyte cryopreservation (OoC) and the data provided. It was found that the non-medical group had significantly higher costs for OoC compared to the medical group, and there was a lack of information on costs and clinical outcomes on the websites.