Today I found myself reading an article about the idea that stronger regulations should be for IVF. I found myself feeling like if that is the case, if they are worried about the cost of multiple births and they want to limit each IVF transfer to 1 embryo then there needs to be a change in the cost for IVF. I felt some discrimination because unless we were mislead, our understanding was that more embryos gives us a better chance of fertilization.
From what I gathered in this article they want to take that away which in my brain says they are upping the cost of IVF. We only had 2 viable embryos to be implanted and unfortunately they didn’t implant for whatever reason. From what I’ve read since it is best to plan on 3 rounds before a live birth so, if most are implanting 3 embryos each time this change would give them 1/3 the chance.
So I find myself asking, will the cost then reflect that? Will insurance start covering it?
I often find myself struggling with the thought of insurance. They’ll cover erectile dysfunction medications (I understand not all policies will) but they won’t cover my inability to conceive? I am a young woman who started trying to conceive at age 23. My issue is clear, my tubes are damaged leaving me with IVF as my only option for becoming pregnant. So, a man’s sex life is more important than my disease? Just over a year ago I had to have my right fallopian tube removed because it was so damaged. It had twisted and had fluid built up so badly that in the end the ovary is pretty much non-functioning. The change has been incredible but I’ll save that for another day. My point is that my insurance paid for the hospital but wouldn’t for the doctor as he was a specialist, yet the only one in my area to perform the procedure. A bit messed up, huh?
What it comes down to for me is that if there is a change and only one embryo is allowed to be implanted then there must be a change in the cost as well. Which the artless touches on. I know that us infertile people are viewed as somewhat fragile and we are at times but this article makes me wonder if having two, three, four, etc children who spend time in the NICU is better or if only having one, or none, is better? It is definitely a discussion to be had, but I’m not sure this one change can be made, it may need to be a string of things.