One of the hardest decision most people have to make when they are deciding which fertility treatments to pursue is the staggering cost. An average IVF cycle costs $12,400 or more, depending on where you live ad how involved the process is for your specific diagnosis. And most people need more than one to actually get pregnant and have a baby. Intrauterine insemination, or IUI, is less expensive but even with that, injectible fertility drugs to induce ovulation run upwards of $1,000 per month and the procedure itself costs about $300 along with all the ultrasounds and such that goes along with the procedure.
And of course, almost none of this is covered by insurance in most states. I was lucky to even have my IUIs half covered, and got off easy because I only needed Clomid, a relatively inexpensive pill.
Most people don't have that kind of cash just laying around, but options do exist for paying for it ... home equity, if you're the rare person in this economy that actually has any; borrowing from family at an interest rate higher than they would get with a CD but still less than a credit card or bank loan; or moving any investments you might have into a more liquid form.
The real issue here, though, is that 30-plus years after IVF became common (and longer than that for IUIs and injectible drugs), it's insane that we're still looking at several thousand dollars for these procedures. Where are the generic fertility drugs? Where are the simplified procedures or efficiencies of scale? Why is IVF in the US as much as four times more expensive than it is in other countries? Why is this not covered by insurance? It's completely and utterly unfair ... and it needs to change.
One ethicist in the Newsweek story actually says that making IVF cheaper would lead to the "commoditization" of babies. In fact, it's the other way around. By making IVF almost inaccessible to middle and lower income people, it's treating babies like a Coach bag, a luxury the well-off can afford and the rest of us can only dream of. And when it comes to something as emotional as building a family, that's just wrong.
What do you think?
Image via Daniel Borman(borman818)/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
Comments 93
I actually don't buy into the fact that you can be living very far below the poverty level and still be meeting all of your child's basic needs and be qualified as an "amazing" parent, without the help of the government. And I don't believe that the government should be directing taxpayers' dollars towards supporting people's children long-term. If you have a disability or an emergency situation, like a lay-off, then fine, government assistance should be used for emergencies, to get people through tough times, not towards creating and sustaining families from birth to age 18. Why would the government give out the cash to create more mouths for the taxpayers to feed?
I think its irresponsible to have children if you aren't financially sound. Children need things, they need clothing, food, education, shelter, healthcare, and the list goes on. I also believe that it is a parent's job to provide those things, NOT everyone else's. Again, in an emergency, sure, I completely understand. But if a parent cannot provide those things at the time they choose to conceive (which would be evident, if they couldn't pay for fertility medication...) they need to rethink their priorities. Seriously.
My daughter said that their son cost them $60,000 + (3 unsuccessful IVF's and 1 successful PGD-an even more advanced procedure) and even some of their medications were paid for by their insurance. They were happy that they had the money and were successful. Then, 16 months later a little girl was born the old fashioned way!
A miracle of science-a miracle of nature.
My daughter said that their son cost them $60,000 + (3 unsuccessful IVF's and 1 successful PGD-an even more advanced procedure) and even some of their medications were paid for by their insurance. They were happy that they had the money and were successful. Then, 16 months later a little girl was born the old fashioned way!
A miracle of science-a miracle of nature. Perhaps, it isn't fair; much of life isn't.
omg i can not believe what i am hearing w/ all these comment on how.. YOU shouldn't be paying for other people to have children.. that its a want not a need.. and that poor people should be having kids ne way.. first off this article never said that tax payers should be paying for these treatments .. and second they never said that poor people should be the ones recieving these treatments. you don't have to be dirt poor to NOT be able to afford these drugs .. most middle class WORKING people that pay there TAXES just like you & are just as worthy of having children as any one else can't even afford these kinds of treatments and drugs. people need to stop being soo ignorant!!! i can't believe this. i bet everyone of those people behind these ignorant comments are able.. w/ o complications to have children, thats why its soo easy for them to pass these judgemental comments.. lets see how you would react if you wanted to start a family and couldn't .. and one way that you could, was way tooo expensive..
shouldn't *
she is just saying how emotionally draining and hard to go thru it is to not be able to conceive. do you have that problem? if not then you shouldn't be telling any one else about how negative they are being. you try to deal w/ something like that.