To characterize the demographic correlates of IVF availability and utilization.
Design
Demographic analysis of public data.
Setting
Each of the 50 states in the United States was used as a unit of analysis. PATIENT(S): Patients undergoing IVF, as demographically estimated. INTERVENTION(S): Publicly available data were collected through the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Centers for Disease Control. The US Census Bureau data were collected by using software available from the Centers for Disease Control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The number of physicians performing IVF and the number of IVF cycles per 100,000 reproductive-age women were used to estimate IVF availability and utilization. RESULT(S): In 2005, 1,031 providers performed 98,242 fresh IVF cycles in 430 centers. Overall availability was 2.5 IVF physicians per 100,000, and utilization was 236 IVF cycles per 100,000. Availability and utilization of IVF were highly correlated. Mean IVF availability and utilization were significantly higher in states with IVF insurance coverage. In adjusted analyses, IVF availability correlated positively with mandated insurance coverage, percentage of single persons, and median income. Utilization of IVF correlated with IVF availability, percentage urbanization, and percentage of individuals >or=25 years of age who had a bachelor's degree. CONCLUSION(S): Lower rates of IVF utilization in some states are correlated with a lack of insurance coverage and decreased availability of physicians providing this service.
IVF availability utilization demographic factors United States, in vitro fertilization insurance coverage state mandates, assisted reproductive technology access socioeconomic disparities, IVF utilization urbanization education income correlates, Hammoud Stanford IVF availability demographic analysis, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology CDC IVF data, IVF insurance mandate state-level utilization analysis, assisted reproduction access disparities reproductive age women, fertility treatment availability socioeconomic determinants US, IVF physician availability correlation utilization rates
PMID 18539275 18539275 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.038 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.038 Hammoud et al. 2009, Hammoud 2009
Cite this article
Hammoud, A. O., Gibson, M., Stanford, J., White, G., Carrell, D. T., & Peterson, M. (2009). In vitro fertilization availability and utilization in the United States: a study of demographic, social, and economic factors. Fertility and sterility, 91(5), 1630-1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.038
Hammoud AO, Gibson M, Stanford J, White G, Carrell DT, Peterson M. In vitro fertilization availability and utilization in the United States: a study of demographic, social, and economic factors. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(5):1630-1635. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.038
Hammoud, A. O., et al. "In vitro fertilization availability and utilization in the United States: a study of demographic, social, and economic factors." Fertility and sterility, vol. 91, no. 5, 2009, pp. 1630-1635.
While we agree with many of the points stated by Dyer et al. in their recent commentary inRBMO(Dyer et al., 2020), we believe their conclusions are focused too narrowly. Limiting the indicator of access to, and utilization of, fertility treatment to assisted reproductive technology (ART) excludes information that is of key importance for subfertile couples, populations, and policymakers. Even in countries where access to ART is widespread, there are more births in subfertile couples through non-ART treatment than through ART (Stanford et al., 2016).
While ART is necessary for some couples to have a child, it is not required for many subfertile couples, and overuse of ART may potentially be harmful (Annual Capri Workshop Group 2019). Focusing solely on ART as a metric may unnecessarily encourage overutilization (Boltz et al., 2017).
We believe the focus on ART and its outcomes for national and international registries of fertility treatment has stunted the scientific development of non-ART treatments, including those which seek to address underlying health conditions (Boyle et al., 2018). There is a pressing and critical need to develop robust registries of couples treated with non-ART treatments, for the improvement of outcomes and the promotion of robust consumer choice. (Spandorfer, 2020).
The ultimate measure of access to fertility care should be determined by the proportion of those with a desire for fertility who achieve a healthy live birth, whether or not ART is required to do so (Mascarenhas et al., 2012). Therefore, notwithstanding methodologic challenges, registry assessments should be developed and supported for all fertility treatments, not only ART.
Maxwell E et al., 2018·Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada
The purpose of this study was to explore how barriers to accessing fertility services affect the treatment decisions made by fertility patients and service providers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Semistructured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 11 patients across Newfoundland and with eight service providers from Newfoundland and Labrador Fertility Services (located in St. John's) to gather the perspectives of both patients and providers. The interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. Patients' responses to fertility service access barriers included choosing cheaper drugs, substituting intrauterine insemination (IUI) for IVF or not using IVF, delaying IVF, choosing more accessible IVF clinics, transferring multiple embryos, and stopping treatment altogether. Some patients, however, noted that the barriers would not stop them from continuing with treatment. Providers' responses to the barriers patients faced included changing drug protocols, manipulating ovulation, providing teleconsultations, and minimizing patients' clinic visits for those living some distance away from St. John's. Both patients and providers make treatment-related decisions to maximize the likelihood of a successful pregnancy and to reduce costs, which can result in less effective care and at times increased risk to the patient. Unlike with other types of care, responses to barriers to fertility treatment largely result in changes to individual patient treatment plans rather than changing models of care. As a result, many patients must continue to seek fertility services in large urban centres and incur substantial personal costs.
Guidelines by Clinical Area · Fertility and Infertility Guidelines
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2025·Fertility and sterility
It has been estimated that only a quarter of persons with infertility in the United States can sufficiently access infertility care. Against this backdrop of disparity, specific populations, including persons of color, sexual and gender minorities, immigrants, and lower-income persons, face barriers that further constrain access to care. This document outlines these communities' barriers and reviews best practice recommendations to extend inclusive access to care for marginalized populations. This reference is intended to support health professionals with knowledge of barriers that limit access to care and to provide practical strategies to improve access and optimize healthcare delivery.
Hariton E et al., 2023·Fertility and Sterility·
Open Access
The field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) is at a crossroads; there is a mismatch between demand for reproductive endocrinology, infertility and assisted reproductive technology (ART) services, and availability of care. This document's focus is to provide data justifying the critical need for increased provision of fertility services in the United States now and into the future, offer approaches to rectify the developing physician shortage problem, and suggest a framework for the discussion on how to meet that increase in demand. The Society of REI recommend the following: 1. Our field should aggressively explore and implement courses of action to increase the number of qualified, highly trained REI physicians trained annually. We recommend efforts to increase the number of REI fellowships and the size complement of existing fellowships be prioritized where possible. These courses of action include: a. Increase the number of REI fellowship training programs. b. Increase the number of fellows trained at current REI fellowship programs. c. The pros and cons of a 2-year focused clinical fellowship track for fellows interested primarily in ART practice were extensively explored. We do not recommend shortening the REI fellowship to 2 years at this time, because efforts should be focused on increasing the number of fellowship training slots (1a and b). 2. It is recommended that the field aggressively implements courses of action to increase the number of and appropriate usage of non-REI providers to increase clinical efficiency under appropriate board-certified REI physician supervision. 3. Automating processes through technologic improvements can free providers at all levels to practice at the top of their license.