We’ve all heard the arguments about the cash-strapped NHS and IVF is a treatment that commissioners in North East Essex have recently decided they can’t afford. But is this really a sensible financial decision? Whatever you think about the rights and wrongs of cutting funding to one group of patients based on the fact that you’ve decided they aren’t as deserving of treatment as some others, there’s also a question of economics.
In Canada, the funding decisions seem to be going in the opposite direction with more states looking into offering treatment after a very detailed report showed that funding and regulating IVF treatment would actually SAVE money rather than costing money when multiple births were taken into consideration.
This is an issue that was raised with Mid-Essex CCG when they were cutting treatment,a s they were warned that some people would go overseas for cheaper, unregulated treatment. In Mid-Essex, they said this was a risk they were prepared to take, despite the fact that we know that it is the biggest risk to health from fertility treatment – and that one very premature triplet pregnancy could cost more than offering IVF to everyone who needed it in the area. Last year’s Canadian study would back this up as it showed millions of pounds in savings in health care and societal costs over 18 years by offering regulated IVF treatment.
You can read more about what’s happening in Canada here, but it does show that CCG decisions about cutting treatment in this way are unlikely to save any money in the long run and may end up being an expensive mistake.