Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Employer-based insurance coverage increases utilization of planned oocyte cryopreservation

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the utilization of planned oocyte cryopreservation (OC) in the year immediately prior to, and the year of, insurance coverage commencement for employees at our institution.

Methods

Patient demographics and cycle outcomes were retrospectively compared between the first OC cycles occurring in 2017 vs. 2018 according to insurance coverage and type, age, and the number of oocytes retrieved and cryopreserved. Continuous demographic variables including age, BMI, day 3 FSH and E2, AMH, gravidity, and parity were compared using student T-tests. Cycle outcomes, including the number of oocytes retrieved and cryopreserved were compared using linear regression models, adjusting for potential confounders including age, BMI, and ovarian reserve parameters.

Results

Between January 2017 and December 2018, 123 patients underwent planned OC at our institution. Patient age ranged from 23 to 44 years and did not significantly differ from 2017 to 2018 (mean 34.9 vs. 35.2). There was a 12% increase in planned OC utilization from 2017 (N = 58) to 2018 (N = 65). Significantly, more patients had any insurance coverage in 2018 vs. 2017 (71.9% vs. 40.4%, p = 0.001), a 78% increase. From 2017 to 2018, the number of patients with hospital-based insurance coverage undergoing planned OC increased by a factor of 8 (5 to 41.5%, p < 0.001), while the number of self-pay patients significantly decreased (p = 0.001). No differences were found regarding cycle outcomes.

Conclusion

A greater proportion of women at our institution had insurance coverage for planned OC in 2018 vs. 2017. Employer-based insurance coverage for planned OC was associated with a significant increase in utilization by hospital employees.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. OECD Family Database, SF2.3: mean age of mothers at first childbirth. 2019. Last updated: Available at: https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF_2_3_Age_mothers_childbirth.pdf

  2. NCHS Pressroom - 2002 News Release - Mean age of mother.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 20 Aug. 2014, Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/02news/ameriwomen.htm#:~:text=In%201970%20the%20average%20age,over%20the%20past%20three%20decades.).

  3. Matthews TJ, Hamilton BE. Delayed childbearing: more women are having their first child later in life. NCHS Data Brief. 2009;21:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Heck KE, Schoendorf KC, Ventura SJ, Kiely JL. Delayed childbearing by education level in the United States, 1969–1994. Maternal and child health journal. 1997;1(2):81–88. Availabel at: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026218322723

  5. Hook EB. Rates of chromosome abnormalities at different maternal ages. Obstet Gynecol. 1981;58(3):282–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nybo Andersen AM, Wohlfahrt J, Christens P, Olsen J, Melbye M. Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2000;320(7251):1708–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7251.1708.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sauer MV, Paulson RJ, Lobo RA. Pregnancy after age 50: application of oocyte donation to women after natural menopause. Lancet (London, England). 1993;341(8841):321–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)90132-z.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hodes-Wertz B, Druckenmiller S, Smith M, Noyes N. What do reproductive-age women who undergo oocyte cryopreservation think about the process as a means to preserve fertility? Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1343–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cobo A, Pérez S, De los Santos MJ, Zulategui J, Domingo J, Remohí J. Effect of different cryopreservation protocols on the metaphase II spindle in human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(3):350–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60218-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cobo A, Kuwayama M, Pérez S, Ruiz A, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Comparison of concomitant outcome achieved with fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes vitrified by the Cryotop method. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(6):1657–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2010;25(9):2239–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Baroni E, Colamaria S, Sapienza F, Ubaldi F. Embryo development of fresh ‘versus’ vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2010;25(1):66–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Parmegiani L, Cognigni GE, Bernardi S, Cuomo S, Ciampaglia W, Infante FE, Tabarelli de Fatis C, Arnone A, Maccarini AM, Filicori M. Efficiency of aseptic open vitrification and hermetical cryostorage of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(4):505–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.07.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org, & Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Planned oocyte cryopreservation for women seeking to preserve future reproductive potential: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(6):1022–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zoll M, Mertes H, Gupta J. Corporate giants provide fertility benefits: have they got it wrong? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;195:A1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.10.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bennett J. Egg freezing: Facebook, Apple, Citibank and delaying childbearing. Time. 2014. https://time.com/3509930/company-paid-egg-freezing-will-be-the-great-equalizer/#:~:text=Company%2DPaid%20Egg%20Freezing%20Will%20Be%20the%20Great%20Equalizer,-Egg%20storage&text=Updated%20on%20October%2016%20at%2011%3A25%20am.&text=It%20was%20a%20free%20seminar,already%20be%20reduced%20by%20half

  17. Mertes H. Does company-sponsored egg freezing promote or confine women’s reproductive autonomy? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(8):1205–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0500-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mertes H, Pennings G. Elective oocyte cryopreservation: who should pay? Human Reprod (Oxford, England). 2012;27(1):9–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. NY State Senate Bill S719. NY State Senate. (2020, January 9). https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s719.

  20. Stoop D, van der Veen F, Deneyer M, Nekkebroeck J, Tournaye H. Oocyte banking for anticipated gamete exhaustion (AGE) is a preventive intervention, neither social nor nonmedical. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28(5):548–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.01.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Inhorn MC, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Westphal LM, Doyle J, Gleicher N, Meirow D, Raanani H, Dirnfeld M, Patrizio P. Medical egg freezing: how cost and lack of insurance cover impact women and their families. Reprod Biomed Soc. 2018;5:82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2017.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, Bell-Ellison BA, Gwede CK, Albrecht TL (2008). Patient-physician communication barriers regarding fertility preservation among newly diagnosed cancer patients. Soc Sci Med 1982, 66(3), 784–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.09.013

  23. Ajala T, Rafi J, Larsen-Disney P, Howell R. Fertility preservation for cancer patients: a review. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2010;2010: 160386. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/160386.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Rashedi AS, de Roo SF, Ataman LM, Edmonds ME, Silva AA, Scarella A, Horbaczewska A, Anazodo A, Arvas A, Ramalho de Carvalho B, Sartorio C, Beerendonk C, Diaz-Garcia C, Suh CS, Melo C, Yding Andersen C, Motta E, Greenblatt EM, Van Moer E, Zand E, Woodruff TK. Survey of fertility preservation options available to patients with cancer around the globe. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020, 6, JGO.2016.008144. https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.2016.008144

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, NY, USA

    Arielle S. Yeshua & Liron Bar-El

  2. Northwell Health Fertility, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, NY, USA

    Baruch Abittan, Christine Mullin & Randi H. Goldman

Authors
  1. Arielle S. Yeshua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Baruch Abittan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liron Bar-El
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine Mullin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Randi H. Goldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arielle S. Yeshua.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yeshua, A.S., Abittan, B., Bar-El, L. et al. Employer-based insurance coverage increases utilization of planned oocyte cryopreservation. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 1393–1397 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02506-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02506-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation