Tough Choices: A Blurb About the Difficult Choices Facing Many Couples in Their Quest for Fertility

Posted on October 31, 2009
Filed Under Drug & Device, HMOs & Health Plans, Health Information, Hospitals & Health Systems, Insurers/Payors, Technology |

It may be one of the hardest decisions an expectant parent would have to make: Reduce the number of fetuses you are carrying or risk losing them all.

Sadly, that is exactly the decision Thomas and Amanda Stansel had to make. After undergoing the popular process of intrauterine insemination in which sperm is injected into Mrs. Stansel’s uterus following hormone injections, Mrs. Stansel received shocking news – she was carrying not one, not two, but six fetuses. However, the Stansel’s excitement was soon crushed when their fertility doctor gave them some additional startling news. Due to the increase in fetuses, the likelihood of delivering six healthy infants was near zero. To save some, he recommended reduction – through a process known as “selective reduction.” The Stansels decided not to reduce, instead relying on their faith to protect them and in August, Mrs. Stansel gave birth to all six babies. Unfortunately, at 14 weeks premature, all weighed in at roughly one pound. The hospital fought valiantly, but three babies died within two weeks. A few months later, another was lost. The two babies remaining continue to struggle, still attached to ventilators and feeding tubes and under constant care in the hospital neonatal intensive care unit.

For couples having difficulties becoming pregnant, there are several options available. First, most doctors recommend utilizing low-potency fertility drugs in order to stimulate the process. If unsuccessful, the next step is intrauterine insemination with hormone injections or in vitro fertilization. This decision is often influenced by two related factors: insurance and costs. The cost of in vitro fertilization costs between $12,000 and $25,000 while intrauterine insemination only costs $2,000 to $3,000 per attempt. As such, many insurance companies will cover multiple rounds of intrauterine insemination before one round of in vitro fertilization. The preference though, is not without drawbacks. Intrauterine insemination, while front-end cheaper, can present significant problems. Excessive hormone injections can lead to an overstimulation of the ovaries which in turn can lead to the increase in probability of having multiples. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supported this theory when it found that the intrauterine insemination process was more likely to result in multiples than in vitro fertilization. And with increased multiples, come increased risks, especially with premature births which carry the risk of long-term complications and disabilities. Multiples, like the Stansel babies, who arrive early, require the highest level of acute care for a longer time than any other patients. This can add up to astronomical financial hardships in the long-run. In addition to money, multiples with increased risks of complications can put families in very difficult decision like the one faced by Thomas and Amanda Stansel- whether to abide by religious beliefs against the perception of abortion or a doctor’s recommendations to reduce.

The current position taken by insurance companies is baffling. Intrauterine insemination is largely undocumented today, but has been shown to be less successful and more dangerous (with respect to increasing risks for premature multiples) than in vitro fertilization. The main upside, cost. Due to the less invasive nature of intrauterine insemination there is a significant cost difference between the two procedures leading many insurance companies to favor the treatment. In doing so, insurance companies may be overlooking two major issues. One, as this procedure becomes more popular, the costs associated with premature multiples will also grow- likely at a much higher rate than the cost of the initial fertility treatment. Second, many couples attempting to start a family do not understand the possible consequences of their actions – the psychological and financial considerations of having a tragic result. Insurance companies have long acted as a gatekeeper in providing medical treatment and should take a second look at their current preference towards intrauterine insemination.

The New York Times, October 11, 2009.

Comments

Copyright © 2007 Saint Louis University School of Law