4.7 Article

Acceptable cost for the patient and society

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 100, 期 2, 页码 319-327

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.06.017

关键词

Assisted reproductive technology; costs; health policy; health economics

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP 100200165]
  2. Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA)
  3. Auxogyn
  4. Schering Plough
  5. LabCorp

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alongside the debate around clinical, scientific, and ethical aspects of assisted reproductive technology (ART), there exists a parallel debate around the economics of ART treatment and what is the most appropriate funding framework for providing safe, equitable, and cost-effective treatment. The cost of ART treatment from a patient perspective exhibits striking differences worldwide due to the costliness of underlying health care systems and the level of public and third-party subsidization. These relative cost differences affect not only who can afford to access ART treatment but how ART is practiced in terms of embryo transfer practices; in turn significantly impacting the health outcomes and costs of caring for ART conceived children. Although empirical evidence indicates that ART treatment is good value money from a societal and patient perspective, the challenge remains to communicate this to policy makers, primarily because fertility treatments are not easily accommodated by traditional health economic methods. Furthermore, with global demand for ART treatment likely to increase, it is important that future funding decisions are informed by what has been learned about how costs and economic incentives influence equity of access and clinical practice. In this review we provide an international perspective on the costs and consequences of ART and summarize key economic considerations from the perspective of ART patients, providers, and society as a whole in the coming decade. (Fertil Steril (R) 2013; 100: 319-27. (C) 2013 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据