کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
3863432 | 1598909 | 2014 | 6 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
PurposeThe high costs of fertility care may deter couples from seeking care. Urologists often are asked about the costs of these treatments. To our knowledge previous studies have not addressed the direct out-of-pocket costs to couples. We characterized these expenses in patients seeking fertility care.Materials and MethodsCouples were prospectively recruited from 8 community and academic reproductive endocrinology clinics. Each participating couple completed face-to-face or telephone interviews and cost diaries at study enrollment, and 4, 10 and 18 months of care. We determined overall out-of-pocket costs, in addition to relationships between out-of-pocket costs and treatment type, clinical outcomes and socioeconomic characteristics on multivariate linear regression analysis.ResultsA total of 332 couples completed cost diaries and had data available on treatment and outcomes. Average age was 36.8 and 35.6 years in men and women, respectively. Of this cohort 19% received noncycle based therapy, 4% used ovulation induction medication only, 22% underwent intrauterine insemination and 55% underwent in vitro fertilization. The median overall out-of-pocket expense was $5,338 (IQR 1,197–19,840). Couples using medication only had the lowest median out-of-pocket expenses at $912 while those using in vitro fertilization had the highest at $19,234. After multivariate adjustment the out-of-pocket expense was not significantly associated with successful pregnancy. On multivariate analysis couples treated with in vitro fertilization spent an average of $15,435 more than those treated with intrauterine insemination. Couples spent about $6,955 for each additional in vitro fertilization cycle.ConclusionsThese data provide real-world estimates of out-of-pocket costs, which can be used to help couples plan for expenses that they may incur with treatment.
Journal: The Journal of Urology - Volume 191, Issue 2, February 2014, Pages 427–432