Demography

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 125–149 | Cite as

Utilization of Infertility Treatments: The Effects of Insurance Mandates

Article

Abstract

Over the last several decades, both delay of childbearing and fertility problems have become increasingly common among women in developed countries. At the same time, technological changes have made many more options available to individuals experiencing fertility problems. However, these technologies are expensive, and only 25% of health insurance plans in the United States cover infertility treatment. As a result of these high costs, legislation has been passed in 15 states that mandates insurance coverage of infertility treatment in private insurance plans. In this article, we examine whether mandated insurance coverage for infertility treatment affects utilization. We allow utilization effects to differ by age and education, since previous research suggests that older, more-educated women should be more likely to be directly affected by the mandates than younger women and less-educated women, both because they are at higher risk of fertility problems and because they are more likely to have private health insurance, which is subject to the mandate. We find robust evidence that the mandates do have a significant effect on utilization for older, more-educated women that is larger than the effects found for other groups. These effects are largest for the use of ovulation-inducing drugs and artificial insemination.

Keywords

Infertility Impaired fecundity Health insurance mandates Health care utilization 

Supplementary material

13524_2011_78_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (36 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 35 kb)

References

  1. Acs, G., Long, S. H., Marquis, M. S., & Short, P. F. (1996). Self-insured employer health plans: Prevalence, profile, provisions, and premiums. Health Affairs, 15, 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends. (2005). 2003 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component Table II.D.1(2003) Average Total Family Premium (in dollars) per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments that offer health insurance by firm size and state: United States, 2003. Retrieved from http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_2/2003/tiid1.ht
  3. American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). (2003). Patient fact sheet: Frequently asked questions about infertility. Retrieved from http://www.asrm.org/awards/index.aspx?id=3012
  4. Bao, Y., & Sturm, R. (2004). The effects of state mental health parity legislation in perceived quality of insurance coverage, perceived access to care, and use of mental health specialty care. Health Services Research, 39, 1361–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bitler, M. (2010). Effects of increased access to infertility treatment on infant and child health outcomes: Evidence from health insurance mandates. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of California–Irvine.Google Scholar
  6. Bitler, M., & Carpenter, C. (2011). Insurance mandates and mammography (NBER Working Paper No. 16669). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  7. Bitler, M., & Schmidt, L. (2006). Health disparities and infertility: Impacts of state-level insurance mandates. Fertility and Sterility, 85, 858–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bitler, M., & Zavodny, M. (2010). The effect of Medicaid eligibility expansions on fertility. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 918–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackburn, M. L., Bloom, D., & Neumark, D. (1993). Fertility timing, wages, and human capital. Journal of Population Economics, 93, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackwell, R. E., & William M. Mercer Actuarial Team. (2000). Hidden costs of infertility treatment in employee health benefits plans. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 182, 891–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buckles, K. (2006). Stopping the biological clock: Fertility therapies and the career/family tradeoff. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
  12. Bunce, V. C., & Wieske, J. P. (2010). Health insurance mandates in the states 2010 (CAHI Policy Brief). Alexandria, VA: Council for Affordable Health Insurance Policy.Google Scholar
  13. Bundorf, M. K., Chun, N., Goda, G. S., & Kessler, D. P. (2009). Do markets respond to quality information? The case of fertility clinics. Journal of Health Economics, 28, 718–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bundorf, M. K., Henne, M., & Baker, L. (2008). Mandated health insurance benefits and the utilization and outcomes of infertility treatment (NBER Working Paper No. 12820). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  15. Chambers, G. M., Sullivan, E. A., Ishihara, O., Chapman, M. G., & Adamson, G. D. (2009). The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: A review of selected developed countries. Fertility and Sterility, 91, 2281–2294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chandra, A., & Stephen, E. H. (2005). Infertility and medical care for infertility: Trends and differentials in national self-reported data. Bethesda, MD: Presented at the NIH Conference on Health Disparities and Infertility.Google Scholar
  17. Collins, J. (2001). Cost-effectiveness of IVF. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, 19, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conley, T. G., & Taber, C. R. (2011). Inference with “difference in differences” with a small number of policy changes. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connolly, M. P., Griesinger, G., Ledget, W., & Postma, M. J. (2009). The impact of introducing patient co-payments in Germany on the use of IVF and ICSI: A price elasticity of demand assessment. Human Reproduction, 24, 2796–2800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dehejia, R., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2004). Booms, busts and babies’ health. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 1091–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gabel, J., Jensen, G. A., & Hawkins, S. (2003). Self-insurance in times of growing and retreated managed care. Health Affairs, 22, 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gelbach, J. B., Klick, J., & Wexler, L. (2009). Passive discrimination: When does it make sense to pay too little? University of Chicago Law Review, 76, 797–857.Google Scholar
  23. Gleicher, N. (2000). Cost-effective infertility care. Human Reproduction Update, 6, 190–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gocial, B. (1995). Primary therapy for tubal disease: Surgery versus IVF. International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies, 40, 297–302.Google Scholar
  25. Gruber, J. (1994). State-mandated benefits and employer-provided health insurance. Journal of Public Economics, 55, 433–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamilton, B., & McManus, B. (2005). Infertility treatment markets: The effects of competition and policy. Unpublished manuscript, Olin School of Business, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  27. Henne, M. B., & Bundorf, M. K. (2008). Insurance mandates and trends in infertility treatments. Fertility and Sterility, 89, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jain, T., Harlow, B. L., & Hornstein, M. D. (2002). Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 661–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensen, G. A., Rost, K., Burton, R. P. D., & Bulycheva, M. (1998). Mental health insurance in the 1990s: Are employers offering less to more? Health Affairs, 17, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, H. W., Jr., & Allen, B. D. (2009). Strategies for designing an efficient insurance fertility benefit: A 21st century approach. Fertility and Sterility, 91, 2295–2297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaestner, R., & Simon, K. I. (2002). Labor market consequences of state health insurance regulation. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56, 136–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu, Z., Dow, W. H., & Norton, E. C. (2004). Effect of drive-through delivery laws on postpartum length of stay and hospital charges. Journal of Health Economics, 23, 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Sutton, P. D., Ventura, S. J., Menacker, F., & Kirmeyer, S. (2006). Births: Final data for 2004 (National Vital Statistics Reports 55(1)). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  34. Mathews, T. J., & Hamilton, B. E. (2002). Mean age of mother: 1970–2000 (National Vital Statistics Reports 51(1)). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  35. Menken, J. (1985). Age and fertility: How late can you wait? Demography, 22, 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, A. R. (2011). The effects of motherhood timing on career path. Journal of Population Economics, 24, 1071–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mookim, P. G., Ellis, R. P., & Kahn-Lang, A. (2008). Infertility treatment, ART and IUI procedures and delivery outcomes: How important is selection? Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, Boston University, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  38. Neumann, P. J., Gharib, S. D., & Weinstein, M. C. (1994). The cost of a successful delivery with in vitro fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine, 331, 239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. New York Times. (2001, September 1). Insurers offering pregnancy benefits now must cover fertility. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/01/nyregion/insurers-offering-pregnancy-benefits-now-must-cover-fertility.html
  40. Nyboe Andersen, A., Goosens, V., Ferraretti, A. P., Bhattacharya, S., Felberbaum, R., de Mouzon, J., & Nygren, K. G. (2008). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction, 23, 756–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oyer, P. (2008). Salary or benefits? Research in Labor Economics, 28, 429–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pacula, R. L., & Sturm, R. (2000). Mental health parity legislation: Much ado about nothing. Health Services Research, 35, 263–275.Google Scholar
  43. Practice Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. (2008). The role of tubal reconstructive surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertility and Sterility, 90(Suppl. 3), S250–S253.Google Scholar
  44. RESOLVE. (2003). Insurance coverage of infertility treatments. Bethesda MD: RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association.Google Scholar
  45. Rothschild, M., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1976). Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: An essay on the economics of imperfect information. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90, 629–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmidt, L. (2005). Effects of infertility insurance mandates on fertility. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, Williams College, Williamstown, MA.Google Scholar
  47. Schmidt, L. (2007). Effects of infertility insurance mandates on fertility. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stephen, E. H., & Chandra, A. (2000). Use of infertility services in the United States: 1995. Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 132–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weinstein, M., Wood, J. W., Stoto, M. A., & Greenfield, D. D. (1990). Components of age-specific fecundability. Population Studies, 44, 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. William M. Mercer Company. (1997). Women’s health issues: Infertility as a covered benefit. Google Scholar
  51. Wright, V. C., Chang, J., Jeng, G., Chen, M., & Macaluso, M. (2007). Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2004. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 56(SS06), 1–22.Google Scholar
  52. Wright, V. C., Schieve, L. A., Reynolds, M. A., & Jeng, G. (2003). Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2000. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 52(SS09), 1–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California-Irvine, RAND Corporation, and NBERIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsSchapiro Hall, Williams CollegeWilliamstownUSA

Personalised recommendations