I’ve come across quite a few mentions of fertility funding schemes recently where you pay a lump sum and are then offered your money back if you don’t get pregnant. Of course, the usual criticism of these schemes is that they are only available for younger women who are most likely to get pregnant. So I was interested to read of one recently which was apparently open to women of all ages with no age cut off. However, reading further down the article, it was apparent that actually although there wasn’t an official age cut off, women did have to pass a “screening” – and it is highly likely that by their mid forties, very few women would pass such a test.
These schemes can seem a great option – but it is important to understand their limitations as they are not open to everyone.
If there are plans afoot in your local area to reduce the number of IVF cycles offered to those who need treatment, or even to cut treatment altogether, you may be left wondering whether there is anything you can do to make a difference. Although there are sometimes public consultations when funding is due to be cut or reduced, it can be tough to have the confidence to put forward your point of view – and sometimes it may start to seem as if there is very little point anyway as people wonder whether those who commission treatment are really listening.
This excellent piece from Bionews written by Richard Clothier tells how he fought back against planned cuts to fertility treatment in his local area. It’s a great read – and you may be surprised by the outcome.
It uses data from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which keeps records of all cycles of treatment carried out in the UK, to aim to give a picture of your individual chances of having a baby after IVF/ICSI treatment,
The reporting of this has been analysed by NHS Choices which points out that there are some gaps in the data which the researchers themselves have acknowledged as it doesn’t account for the woman’s body mass index (BMI), whether she smokes and how much alcohol she drinks.
Despite these limitations, it is certainly a very useful tool and one which may help many couples get some kind of realistic idea of the chances of an IVF cycle working. Of course, the experience of each individual couple is always different and this doesn’t allow you to include any detailed medical data either, but it does give a broad picture view which may prove very helpful.
Whether you are at the point of considering IVF or have already had some treatment, you will be aware of the wide range of additional treatments which some fertility clinics offer on top of the standard treatment cycle. The idea is that these will improve your chances of success, and as people inevitably want to do all they can to boost the likelihood of a positive outcome, it can be very tempting to pay for at least some of these.
It is clear that they will certainly add to the cost of your treatment, but whether they will add any benefits in terms of outcomes is still very much up for debate. Few of these add-ons have a reliable base of scientific evidence to prove that they are likely to work, yet patients are often paying for them believing that without them there is a lower chance of a successful cycle.
Yacoub Khalaf who is Director of the Assisted Conception Unit a Guy’s and St Thomas’ in London, spoke on the subject at The Fertility Show at the weekend. If you missed it, you may be interested in his article on the Huffington Post about this.
The fertility regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, has just published its report on the number of incidents in fertility clinics. These incidents can be all kinds of things going wrong in a clinic from a patient suffering from hyperstimulation to a letter sent to the wrong person by mistake.
Incidents in fertility clinics are rare – they occur in less than one percent of the treatments performed in the UK fertility clinics – but each incident is one too many.
The HFEA’s annual report on fertility clinic incidents shows that the total number of incidents increased slightly but for the first time since the HFEA began publishing incidents reports, there were no A grade (the most serious) incidents reported at all.
HFEA Chair Sally Cheshire called on fertility clinics to substantially reduce the rate of incidents next year. She said “The UK’s fertility sector is one of the most developed in the world, and the high level of professionalism in the sector is highlighted by both the fact that fewer than 600 incidents were reported out of more than 72,000 treatments, and that no ‘grade A’ incidents were reported in the last year. We want to ensure clinics give patients the best possible treatment, so that they have the best chances of having the families they so dearly want. So, while incidents are already occurring infrequently, we want to see them reduce even further. I’m setting the challenge to all clinics in the UK to make sure that the overall number of incidents has decreased by this time next year. It’s not only ‘grade A’ incidents that can have an adverse effect on patients. All incidents, whether it’s a letter sent to the wrong address, or a case of ovarian hyper-stimulation, can have serious consequences for patients, and more has got to be done to make sure that fewer people are affected in the future.”
What a sorry state of affairs in Bedfordshire where the CCG was recommended to continue funding one cycle of IVF treatment, but instead delayed making a decision until November. Anyone needing IVF in the region was only ever getting one of the three full cycles recommended as being clinically effective and cost effective by NICE, and their consultation on cutting all IVF had led to the recommendation to continue instead.
A spokeswoman for the Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group told Bedfordshire on Sunday that the evidence base and associated research was “complex”. It is really not cost effective for the Clinical Commissioning Group to spend time trying to make sense of this when NICE has already looked into this in very great depth making use of the knowledge of some of the country’s leading experts in the field and also using skilled health economists to work out what would be most cost effective. Let’s hope that Bedfordshire CCG use this evidence when they make their decision in November, and rather than considering cutting the one cycle they currently offer, instead start funding what NICE recommends.
Secondary infertility – which happens when you are having trouble conceiving after getting pregnant before either naturally or with treatment – is something that is often overlooked. There is often an assumption that you must be able to get pregnant again if you’ve done so in the past – and that once you have a child, you ought to be satisfied with that anyway.
The topic has been covered in the press today, which reminded me that Fertility Network UK do have a special group for parents who are experiencing fertility problems. It can be incredibly helpful to get together with others who are going through similar things, and if you’d like to join the group you can contact the group by emailing email@example.com
If you’re fed up with “helpful” comments, advice and suggestions from friends and family about your fertility problem, you should read this article and consider passing it on to those around you. I thought the list of things NOT to say to someone with fertility problems was excellent – and sadly I’m sure we’ve all heard more than one of them more than once..
Have a look, see what you think – maybe you have some more of your own?
New research suggests that ethnicity may affect the chances of ending up with a baby after fertility treatment. A team from The University of Nottingham and the fertility unit at Royal Derby Hospital analysed data from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to see whether ethnicity had an impact on treatment outcomes, and found that there were some significant differences. According to the data, White British women are more likely to get pregnant with IVF or ICSI than women from a number of other ethnic groups.
This is the biggest study to look at the outcomes for individual ethnic groups in this way, and it considered the number of eggs collected and fertilised and the number of embryos produced as well as the pregnancy and live birth rate. The researchers also considered potential reasons for the differences in outcomes for the different ethnic groups and discuss factors such as genetic background, environment, diet, socio-economic and cultural factors and attitudes to medical care and accessing fertility treatment. They also discuss the fact that South Asian women are at higher risk of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) which can affect egg quality and success rates.