To examine resource use (costs) by women presenting for infertility evaluation and treatment over 18 months, regardless of treatment pursued. Prospective cohort study in which women were followed for 18 months.
Setting
eight infertility practices. 398 women recruited from infertility practices. Women completed interviews and questionnaires at baseline and after 4, 10, and 18 months of follow-up; medical records were abstracted after 18 months.
Main Outcome Measures
per-person and per-successful-outcome costs. Treatment groups were defined as highest intensity treatment use. Twenty percent of women did not pursue cycle-based treatment; approximately half pursued IVF. Median per-person costs ranged from $1,182 for medications only to $24,373 and $38,015 for IVF and IVF-donor egg groups, respectively. Estimates of costs of successful outcomes (delivery or ongoing pregnancy by 18 months) were higher ($61,377 for IVF, for example), reflecting treatment success rates. Within the time frame of the study, costs were not significantly different for women whose outcomes were successful and women whose outcomes were not. Although individual patient costs vary, these cost estimates developed from actual patient treatment experiences may provide patients with realistic estimates to consider when initiating infertility treatment.
PMID 21130988 21130988 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.026 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.026 Katz et al. 2011, Katz 2011
Cite this article
Katz, P., Showstack, J., Smith, J. F., Nachtigall, R. D., Millstein, S. G., Wing, H., Eisenberg, M. L., Pasch, L. A., Croughan, M. S., & Adler, N. (2011). Costs of infertility treatment: results from an 18-month prospective cohort study. Fertility and Sterility. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.026
Katz P, Showstack J, Smith JF, Nachtigall RD, Millstein SG, Wing H, Eisenberg ML, Pasch LA, Croughan MS, Adler N. Costs of infertility treatment: results from an 18-month prospective cohort study. Fertility and Sterility. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.026
Katz, P., et al. "Costs of infertility treatment: results from an 18-month prospective cohort study." Fertility and Sterility, 2011.
To assess the total costs of infertility coverage, determine the proportion of healthcare costs related to infertility, compare infertility costs to those of other diseases, and calculate a per member per month cost of an infertility benefit. Historical prospective analysis. A university-based, self-insured, fee-for-service healthcare plan. PATIENT(S): Healthcare policy members from January 1993 through December 1995. INTERVENTION(S): General and infertility-specific healthcare that included diagnostic tests for infertility, induction of ovulation, artificial insemination, donor gametes, in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, zygote intrafallopian transfer, microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration, embryo cryopreservation, and frozen embryo transfer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Healthcare costs, as calculated from the International Classification of Diseases, Volume 9 codes. RESULT(S): Total healthcare and infertility-specific costs of the university healthcare plan over a 3-year period were $86,445,642 and $680,921, respectively. Therefore, infertility accounted for 0.79% of the total university healthcare costs. The mean total and infertility-specific per member per month healthcare costs were $86.15 and $0.67, respectively. CONCLUSION(S): These data reveal that infertility costs account for only a small fraction of the total healthcare costs and can be attained at a nominal monthly fee.
Chavez-Badiola A et al., 2025·Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics·
Open Access
The economics of IVF operations remain opaque despite growing prevalence and substantial investment in fertility services. Traditional accounting methods often fall short by failing to capture the complex relationship between biological inputs (number of eggs and embryos processed), skilled labor, and equipment utilization, creating a distorted view across different procedures and patient characteristics. This paper presents Activity-Based Costing (ABC) as a methodological framework for understanding true IVF laboratory costs. We demonstrate a use case with an analysis of data from five IVF laboratories (600-2200 annual egg retrieval cycles) across different US regions including time studies of 500 + procedures at each site, with theoretical projections to 4000 annual egg retrieval cycles based on queuing theory. We identify significant cost elasticity with biological inputs; costs increase by 55% for egg freezing when the number of eggs per patient triples, and by 30% for complex IVF procedures (such as those requiring embryo biopsy) when egg count per patient doubles. We also describe substantial scale effects, with marginal lab costs 40% higher in centers performing 500 yearly egg retrieval cycles versus 2000-cycle centers, and 4000-cycle centers estimated to achieve 13-40% lower costs per procedure than operations performing 500 retrieval cycles annually. Finally, we show labor efficiency increases by 30% between centers performing 500 and 2000 annual egg retrieval cycles, an observation supported by a queuing rule of thumb (QROT) analysis, with capital utilization also improving dramatically. ABC enables evidence-based pricing, capacity planning, technology assessment, and consolidation strategizing. ABC is intended to inform operational efficiency, not clinical treatment, ensuring that quality of care and patient outcomes remain the primary considerations in fertility services.
The 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. Couples 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. A 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. These 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.
To estimate the cost of maternal morbidity for all 2019 pregnancies and births in the United States.
Using data from 2010 to 2020, we developed a cost analysis model that calculated the excess cases of outcomes attributed to nine maternal morbidity conditions with evidence of outcomes in the literature. We then modeled the associated medical and nonmedical costs of each outcome incurred by birthing people and their children in 2019, projected through five years postpartum.
We estimated that the total cost of nine maternal morbidity conditions for all pregnancies and births in 2019 was $32.3 billion from conception to five years postpartum, amounting to $8,624 in societal costs per birthing person.
We found only nine maternal morbidity conditions with sufficient supporting evidence of linkages to outcomes and costs. The lack of comprehensive data for other conditions suggests that maternal morbidity exacts a higher toll on society than we found.
Although this study likely provides lower bound cost estimates, it establishes the substantial adverse societal impact of maternal morbidity and suggests further opportunities to invest in maternal health.