Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36542313›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023

In vitro fertilization: a cross-sectional analysis of 58 US insurance companies.

Michael Ha, Abigail Drees, Madalyn Myers, Emily R Finkelstein, Mary Dandulakis, Maxine Reindorf, Dana M Roque, Stephanie A Beall, Sheri Slezak, Yvonne M Rasko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Comparing vasectomy techniques, recovery and complications: tips and tricks.International journal of impotence research · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Michael HaDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abigail DreesDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Madalyn MyersDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Emily R FinkelsteinDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. emilyfinkelstein@mail.rossmed.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4666-0912
Mary DandulakisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Maxine ReindorfThe Royal London Hospital, Barts NHS Health, London, UK.
Dana M RoqueDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Stephanie A BeallDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sheri SlezakDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Yvonne M RaskoDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInfertility affects one in eight women in the USA. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is an effective but costly treatment that lacks uniform insurance coverage. We evaluated the current insurance coverage landscape for IVF in America.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 58 insurance companies with the greatest state enrollment and market share, calculated to represent the majority of Americans with health insurance. Individual companies were evaluated for a publicly available policy on IVF services by web-based search, telephone interview, or email to the insurer. Coverage status, required criteria, qualifying risk factors, and contraindications to coverage were extracted from available policies.

resultsFifty-one (88%) of the fifty-eight companies had a policy for IVF services. Thirty-five (69%) of these policies extended coverage. Case-by-case coverage was stated in seven policies (14%), while coverage was denied in the remaining nine (18%). The most common criterion to receive coverage was a documented diagnosis of infertility (n = 23, 66%), followed by care from a reproductive endocrinologist (n = 9, 26%). Twenty-three (45%) of the companies with a policy had at least one contraindication to coverage. Three companies (6%) limited the number of IVF cycles to be covered, capping payments after 3-4 lifetime cycles.

conclusionMost Americans with health insurance are provided a public policy regarding IVF. However, there is great variation in coverage and requirements to receive coverage between insurers. Coupled with inconsistencies in state-level mandates and available choices for employer-sponsored plans, this may limit coverage of IVF services and, therefore, access to infertility treatment.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroInfertilityCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInsurance CoverageInsurance, HealthUnited StatesAssisted reproductionInfertilityInsuranceIn vitro fertilization

Identifiers

PMID36542313
PMCPMC10033791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.