Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022
In vitro fertilization: a cross-sectional analysis of 58 US insurance companies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ha Michael, Drees Abigail, Myers Madalyn, Finkelstein Emily R, Dandulakis Mary, Reindorf Maxine, Roque Dana M, Beall Stephanie A, Slezak Sheri, Rasko Yvonne M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Infertility affects one in eight women in the USA. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is an effective but costly treatment that lacks uniform insurance coverage. We evaluated the current insurance coverage landscape for IVF in America.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 58 insurance companies with the greatest state enrollment and market share, calculated to represent the majority of Americans with health insurance. Individual companies were evaluated for a publicly available policy on IVF services by web-based search, telephone interview, or email to the insurer. Coverage status, required criteria, qualifying risk factors, and contraindications to coverage were extracted from available policies.
RESULTS: Fifty-one (88%) of the fifty-eight companies had a policy for IVF services. Thirty-five (69%) of these policies extended coverage. Case-by-case coverage was stated in seven policies (14%), while coverage was denied in the remaining nine (18%). The most common criterion to receive coverage was a documented diagnosis of infertility (n = 23, 66%), followed by care from a reproductive endocrinologist (n = 9, 26%). Twenty-three (45%) of the companies with a policy had at least one contraindication to coverage. Three companies (6%) limited the number of IVF cycles to be covered, capping payments after 3-4 lifetime cycles.
CONCLUSION: Most Americans with health insurance are provided a public policy regarding IVF. However, there is great variation in coverage and requirements to receive coverage between insurers. Coupled with inconsistencies in state-level mandates and available choices for employer-sponsored plans, this may limit coverage of IVF services and, therefore, access to infertility treatment.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 58 insurance companies with the greatest state enrollment and market share, calculated to represent the majority of Americans with health insurance. Individual companies were evaluated for a publicly available policy on IVF services by web-based search, telephone interview, or email to the insurer. Coverage status, required criteria, qualifying risk factors, and contraindications to coverage were extracted from available policies.
RESULTS: Fifty-one (88%) of the fifty-eight companies had a policy for IVF services. Thirty-five (69%) of these policies extended coverage. Case-by-case coverage was stated in seven policies (14%), while coverage was denied in the remaining nine (18%). The most common criterion to receive coverage was a documented diagnosis of infertility (n = 23, 66%), followed by care from a reproductive endocrinologist (n = 9, 26%). Twenty-three (45%) of the companies with a policy had at least one contraindication to coverage. Three companies (6%) limited the number of IVF cycles to be covered, capping payments after 3-4 lifetime cycles.
CONCLUSION: Most Americans with health insurance are provided a public policy regarding IVF. However, there is great variation in coverage and requirements to receive coverage between insurers. Coupled with inconsistencies in state-level mandates and available choices for employer-sponsored plans, this may limit coverage of IVF services and, therefore, access to infertility treatment.