CALL US AT: (877) 838.BABY


Archive for the ‘Wyden Bill’ tag

Infertility Podcast Series: Journey to the Crib: Chapter 29: Why the Wyden Bill Does Not Support Fertility Patients

By David Kreiner MD

November 3rd, 2013 at 11:20 am

 

Welcome to the Journey to the Crib Podcast.  We will have a blog discussion each week with each chapter.  This podcast covers Chapter Twenty-Nine: Why the Wyden Bill Does Not Support Fertility Patients. You, the listener, are invited to ask questions and make comments.  You can access the podcast here: http://podcast.longislandivf.com/?p=138

Why “The Wyden Bill” Does Not Support Infertility Patients

 

IVF results subjected to government audit were mandated to be reported with the passage of the “Wyden bill”.   The intent of the CDC and national reproductive society (SART) was to assist infertility patients by informing them of the relative success of all IVF programs in the country. 

 

Unfortunately, what sometimes creates the best statistical results is not always in the best interest of the mother, child, family and society.  Now that prospective parents are comparing pregnancy rates between programs there is a competitive pressure on these programs to reports the best possible rates.   Sounds good…unfortunately it doesn’t always work out that way for the following reasons.

 

Patients with diminished ovarian reserve, who are older or for any number of reasons have a reduced chance for success, have a hard time convincing some programs to let them go for a retrieval.  In 2008, we reported our success, 15% with patients who stimulated with three or fewer follicles.  Sounds low and in fact many of these patients were turned away by other IVF programs in our area.  However, for those families created as a result of their IVF, these “miracle” babies are a treasure that they otherwise… if not for our program giving them their chance… would never have been born.

 

Another unfortunate circumstance of featuring live birth rate per transfer as the gold standard for comparison is that it pressures programs to transfer multiple embryos thereby increasing the number of high risk multiple pregnancies created.  This is not just a burden placed on the patient for their own medical and social reasons but these multiple pregnancies add additional financial costs that are covered by society by increasing costs of health insurance as well as the cost of raising an increased number of handicapped children.

 

William Petok, the Chair of the American Fertility Association’s Education Committee reported on the alternative Single-Embryo Transfer (SET) “Single Embryo Transfer:  Why Not Put All of Your Eggs in One Basket?”.  He stated in November 2008, that although multiple rather than single-embryo transfer for IVF is less expensive in the short run, the risk of costly complications is much greater.  Universal adaptation of SET cost patients an extra $100 million to achieve the same pregnancy rates as multiple transfers, but this approach would save a total of $1 billion in healthcare costs.

 

We have offered SET since 2006 with the incentive of free cryopreservation, storage for a year and now a three for one deal for the frozen embryo transfers within the year in an effort to drive patients to the safer SET alternative. 

 

If we are going to report pregnancy rates with IVF as is required by the Wyden Bill, let us put all programs on the same playing field by enforcing the number of embryos to be transferred and even promoting minimal stimulation IVF for good prognosis patients.  The Wyden Bill without the teeth to regulate such things as the number of embryos transferred and reporting success per embryo transfer does more harm than good.  Let us promote safer alternatives and report in terms of live birth rate per stimulation and retrieval, including frozen embryo transfers, so that there is a better understanding of the success of a cycle without increasing risks and costs from multiples.

 

* * * * * * **  * * * *

Was this helpful in answering your questions about the Wyden Bill, IVF success rates and reporting requirements, and SET?

Please share your thoughts about this podcast here. And ask any questions and Dr. Kreiner will answer them.

no comments

Infertility Podcast Series: Journey to the Crib: Chapter 29: Why the Wyden Bill Does Not Support Fertility Patients

By David Kreiner MD

August 28th, 2013 at 2:18 pm

 

Welcome to the Journey to the Crib Podcast.  We will have a blog discussion each week with each chapter.  This podcast covers Chapter Twenty-Nine: Why the Wyden Bill Does Not Support Fertility Patients. You, the listener, are invited to ask questions and make comments.  You can access the podcast here: http://podcast.longislandivf.com/?p=138

Why “The Wyden Bill” Does Not Support Infertility Patients

 

IVF results subjected to government audit were mandated to be reported with the passage of the “Wyden bill”.   The intent of the CDC and national reproductive society (SART) was to assist infertility patients by informing them of the relative success of all IVF programs in the country. 

 

Unfortunately, what sometimes creates the best statistical results is not always in the best interest of the mother, child, family and society.  Now that prospective parents are comparing pregnancy rates between programs there is a competitive pressure on these programs to reports the best possible rates.   Sounds good…unfortunately it doesn’t always work out that way for the following reasons.

 

Patients with diminished ovarian reserve, who are older or for any number of reasons have a reduced chance for success, have a hard time convincing some programs to let them go for a retrieval.  In 2008, we reported our success, 15% with patients who stimulated with three or fewer follicles.  Sounds low and in fact many of these patients were turned away by other IVF programs in our area.  However, for those families created as a result of their IVF, these “miracle” babies are a treasure that they otherwise… if not for our program giving them their chance… would never have been born.

 

Another unfortunate circumstance of featuring live birth rate per transfer as the gold standard for comparison is that it pressures programs to transfer multiple embryos thereby increasing the number of high risk multiple pregnancies created.  This is not just a burden placed on the patient for their own medical and social reasons but these multiple pregnancies add additional financial costs that are covered by society by increasing costs of health insurance as well as the cost of raising an increased number of handicapped children.

 

William Petok, the Chair of the American Fertility Association’s Education Committee reported on the alternative Single-Embryo Transfer (SET) “Single Embryo Transfer:  Why Not Put All of Your Eggs in One Basket?”.  He stated in November 2008, that although multiple rather than single-embryo transfer for IVF is less expensive in the short run, the risk of costly complications is much greater.  Universal adaptation of SET cost patients an extra $100 million to achieve the same pregnancy rates as multiple transfers, but this approach would save a total of $1 billion in healthcare costs.

 

We have offered SET since 2006 with the incentive of free cryopreservation, storage for a year and now a three for one deal for the frozen embryo transfers within the year in an effort to drive patients to the safer SET alternative. 

 

If we are going to report pregnancy rates with IVF as is required by the Wyden Bill, let us put all programs on the same playing field by enforcing the number of embryos to be transferred and even promoting minimal stimulation IVF for good prognosis patients.  The Wyden Bill without the teeth to regulate such things as the number of embryos transferred and reporting success per embryo transfer does more harm than good.  Let us promote safer alternatives and report in terms of live birth rate per stimulation and retrieval, including frozen embryo transfers, so that there is a better understanding of the success of a cycle without increasing risks and costs from multiples.

 

* * * * * * **  * * * *

Was this helpful in answering your questions about the Wyden Bill, IVF success rates and reporting requirements, and SET?

Please share your thoughts about this podcast here. And ask any questions and Dr. Kreiner will answer them.

no comments

Infertility Podcast Series: Journey to the Crib: Chapter 29: Why the Wyden Bill Does Not Support Fertility Patients

By David Kreiner, MD

September 28th, 2012 at 6:22 am

 Welcome to the Journey to the Crib Podcast.  We will have a blog discussion each week with each chapter.  This podcast covers Chapter Twenty-Nine: Why the Wyden Bill Does Not Support Fertility Patients. You, the listener, are invited to ask questions and make comments.  You can access the podcast here: http://podcast.longislandivf.com/?p=138 

Why “The Wyden Bill” Does Not Support Infertility Patients 

IVF results subjected to government audit were mandated to be reported with the passage of the “Wyden bill”.   The intent of the CDC and national reproductive society (SART) was to assist infertility patients by informing them of the relative success of all IVF programs in the country.  

Unfortunately, what sometimes creates the best statistical results is not always in the best interest of the mother, child, family and society.  Now that prospective parents are comparing pregnancy rates between programs there is a competitive pressure on these programs to reports the best possible rates.   Sounds good…unfortunately it doesn’t always work out that way for the following reasons. 

Patients with diminished ovarian reserve, who are older or for any number of reasons have a reduced chance for success, have a hard time convincing some programs to let them go for a retrieval.  In 2008, we reported our success, 15% with patients who stimulated with three or fewer follicles.  Sounds low and in fact many of these patients were turned away by other IVF programs in our area.  However, for those families created as a result of their IVF, these “miracle” babies are a treasure that they otherwise… if not for our program giving them their chance… would never have been born. 

Another unfortunate circumstance of featuring live birth rate per transfer as the gold standard for comparison is that it pressures programs to transfer multiple embryos thereby increasing the number of high risk multiple pregnancies created.  This is not just a burden placed on the patient for their own medical and social reasons but these multiple pregnancies add additional financial costs that are covered by society by increasing costs of health insurance as well as the cost of raising an increased number of handicapped children. 

William Petok, the Chair of the American Fertility Association’s Education Committee reported on the alternative Single-Embryo Transfer (SET) “Single Embryo Transfer:  Why Not Put All of Your Eggs in One Basket?”.  He stated in November 2008, that although multiple rather than single-embryo transfer for IVF is less expensive in the short run, the risk of costly complications is much greater.  Universal adaptation of SET cost patients an extra $100 million to achieve the same pregnancy rates as multiple transfers, but this approach would save a total of $1 billion in healthcare costs.

We have offered SET since 2006 with the incentive of free cryopreservation, storage for a year and now a three for one deal for the frozen embryo transfers within the year in an effort to drive patients to the safer SET alternative.  

If we are going to report pregnancy rates with IVF as is required by the Wyden Bill, let us put all programs on the same playing field by enforcing the number of embryos to be transferred and even promoting minimal stimulation IVF for good prognosis patients.  The Wyden Bill without the teeth to regulate such things as the number of embryos transferred and reporting success per embryo transfer does more harm than good.  Let us promote safer alternatives and report in terms of live birth rate per stimulation and retrieval, including frozen embryo transfers, so that there is a better understanding of the success of a cycle without increasing risks and costs from multiples. 

* * * * * * **  * * * *

Was this helpful in answering your questions about the Wyden Bill, IVF success rates and reporting requirements, and SET?

Please share your thoughts about this podcast here. And ask any questions and Dr. Kreiner will answer them.

 

no comments

Have You Ever Heard of The Wyden Bill?

By Dr. David Kreiner

December 1st, 2010 at 8:45 am

Unlike most other fields in medicine, IVF success rates have been subject to public reporting since the passage of the Wyden Bill in 1992. The intent of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report and the Society of Reproductive Technology (SART) report was to help infertility patients by informing them of the relative success of different IVF programs. Unfortunately, what sometimes creates the best IVF statistical outcomes in pregnancy rates is not always what is in the best interest of the mother, child, family and society.

Now that prospective patients are comparing pregnancy rates between fertility programs there is a competitive pressure on these programs to produce the best reportable rates. This means that patients with lower odds of success are less likely to be offered IVF retrievals and are diverted to IUIs or donor egg cycles.

The Wyden Bill results in competitive pressure to transfer more embryos to increase the pregnancy rate as reported. Despite the fact that there is evidence that a program can achieve similar live birth rates by transferring a single embryo each time, the Wyden Bill creates a disincentive to do so. It is no surprise that the clinics with the highest success rates have also had the highest triplet rates.

Live birth rates are reported per fresh cycle… those from subsequent frozen embryo transfers are reported separately. But again, success rates are reported per transfer, motivating programs to transfer multiple embryos to enhance their success rates. If live birth rates were reported per fresh IVF stimulation and retrieval… including those conceived from subsequent frozen embryo transfers, then programs would be likely to provide the less risky option of single embryo transfer to patients.

The risks of prematurity and pregnancy complications are far higher in multiple pregnancies than in single pregnancies. Financial and emotional costs to families and society are enormous. Multiple pregnancies result in longer hospitalizations, neonatal ICU (NICU) admissions, complications resulting in disabled children and occasionally death. They often do not have a happy ending, including increasing the incidence of divorce.

At East Coast Fertility, our Single Embryo Transfer program covers the financial cost for transferring one embryo at a time. For the fee of one IVF cycle, we offer free cryopreservation, embryo storage and unlimited frozen embryo transfers until a patient achieves a live birth. We also offer MicroIVF (minimal stimulation IVF) which is at least half the price of full stim IVF and about the same cost as a typical IUI cycle. Since minimal stimulation does not result in as many eggs, other programs are uncomfortable offering this treatment because it would lower their reported pregnancy rates.

If we are going to report IVF pregnancy rates as required by the Wyden Bill, let’s put all programs on the same playing field… enforce the number of embryos to be transferred and promote minimal stimulation IVF as safer and more efficient than IUI.

The Wyden Bill, without the teeth to regulate such things as the number of embryos transferred and reporting success per stimulation and retrieval and not by isolated embryo transfer, does more harm than good.

Let’s support efforts to reduce the number of embryos transferred by removing the added costs to the patient of cryo-preservation, storage and subsequent frozen embryo transfers and by absorbing them ourselves as a profession. This will go a long way in eliminating multiple birth pregnancies, and will do the right thing for the patients, their families and for society.

As Ghandi said “Be the change that you want to see.”

Let’s not just talk about it.

no comments


The Fertility Daily Blog by Long Island IVF
© Copyright 2010-2012