IVF Discriminates Against Poor Couples
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
Piping Hot Posts
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
momof030404
i think that when they were WASTING their time on this current health care "reform" bill they could have spent a LITTLE time doing something about the COST of all exorbitant health care procedures! It's so sad to think that the option is there but unattainable to have children when you cant do it with out help :( MAYBE someone up there in DC will get thier thumb out their rear and actually REFORM HC instead of playing lip service!!!
billsfan1104
Katie Sasso
I agree with Billsfan. While I do wonder where generic fertility drugs are it is not up to the american public to fund a couples IVF treatments
Shelly
Anon
rerratron
You're missing the point, billsfan and katie. At no point in the article did the writer say that taxpayers should pay for low-income women's IVF. What she's saying is that the technology has been around for thirty years, and there is no reason it should still cost so much. Chill out.
celestegood
Rerratron, exactly. In no point in this entire article did it say that people on the public dole deserve to be able to get IVF. It's talking about how expensive it is for people with PRIVATE insurance to get. That most insurance companies don't cover it, and that its four times more expensive in america than other countries.
It's been around for thirty years; why does it still cost so much here?
Anon
angevil53
what's next? i need to make sure they have a car to get to their appointments too? and a nice luxury car at that i'll bet! having a child isn't a NEED, it's a want.
Ashley Castillo
It's expensive because they know you'll pay it. Taking a loan against your home, hitting up family members for money is what you do when you just HAVE to have something, and so the people that make these drugs have no incentive to lower their prices.
I'm sure they have priced their products perfectly to make within reach of the most people while still making the most profit they can. If this leaves out the poor and middle class, oh well. They are running a business, not a charity. It would be interesting to know how much it costs these companies to make these drugs, so we could know how much profit they make off of their products.
Changing the situation in any way is difficult because IVF is optional (doesn't treat a disease) and its a gamble as to whether it will be successful. I don't blame insurance companies for not covering it. As painful as it is for the couple, it just doesn't make sense to cover it, and I don't think it should.