Skip to main content


Log in

Cost-effectiveness of social oocyte freezing in Germany: estimates based on a Markov model

  • Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript



Is oocyte freezing for non-medical reasons—the so-called “social freezing” (SF)—cost-effective compared to standard in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in Germany today?


We developed a model based on three strategies for women planning to postpone pregnancy. In each strategy, women actively practiced contraception until 40 then tried to conceive naturally for 1 year. If unsuccessful, women using strategy I (oocyte cryopreservation) attempted ICSI with frozen oocytes in the 2nd year, while women using strategy II (no action) further attempted natural conception. In strategy III (IVF/ICSI), women underwent 1 year of IVF/ICSI. If still unsuccessful, each strategy was followed by attempting natural conception again until 45. We used an adaptive Markov model to estimate and compare live birth rates and cost-effectiveness measures.


For strategy I, cumulative live birth rates at age 45 generally declined with the woman’s age at freezing and were between 71.4% (25 years) and 67.6% (38 years), while the cumulative success rate was 51.5% for strategy II and 60.8% for strategy III. The costs per live birth of egg freezing were age-dependent ranging between 22,418 € (30 years) and 25,590 € (38 years). The costs for strategy III were lower at 20,293 € per live birth.


Based on our results, social freezing in Germany may lead to additional pregnancies among women over 40 but also to significantly higher costs, since given the current live birth success rates and pricing, social freezing does not appear to be cost-effective.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Petropanagos A, Cattapan A, Baylis F et al (2015) Social egg freezing: risk, benefits and other considerations. CMAJ 187(9):666–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rudick B, Opper N, Paulson R et al (2010) The status of oocyte cryopreservation in the United States. Fertil Steril 94(7):2642–2646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Robertson JA (2014) Egg freezing and egg banking: empowerment and alienation in assisted reproduction. J Law Biosci 1(2):113–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Code of practise. Available at: Accessed 30 May 2017

  5. Cobo A, Garrido N, Pellicer A, et al (2015) Six years experience in ovum donation using vitrified oocytes: report of cumulative outcomes, impact of storage time, and development of a predictive model for oocyte survival rate. Fertil Steril 104(6):1426–34.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Doyle JO, Richter KS, Lim J et al (2016) Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil Steril 105(2):459–66.e2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van Loendersloot LL, Moolenaar LM, Mol BWJ et al (2011) Expanding reproductive lifespan: a cost-effectiveness study on oocyte freezing. Hum Reprod 26(11):3054–3060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hirshfeld-Cytron J, Grobman WA, Milad MP (2012) Fertility preservation for social indications: a cost-based decision analysis. Fertil Steril 97(3):665–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldman RH, Racowsky C, Farland LV et al (2017) Predicting the likelihood of live birth for elective oocyte cryopreservation: a counseling tool for physicians and patients. Hum Reprod 32(4):853–859

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lyttle Schumacher B, Grover N, Mesen T et al (2017) Modeling of live-birth rates and cost-effectiveness of oocyte cryopreservation for cancer patients prior to high- and low-risk gonadotoxic chemotherapy. Hum Reprod 32(10):2049–2055

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. te Velde ER (2002) The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum Reprod Update 8(2):141–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Faddy MJ, Gosden RG (1996) A model conforming the decline in follicle numbers to the age of menopause in women. Hum Reprod 11(7):1484–1486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Leridon H (2004) Can assisted reproduction technology compensate for the natural decline in fertility with age? A model assessment. Hum Reprod 19(7):1548–1553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Deutsches IVF Register (ed) (2017) DIR Jahrbuch 2016: Sonderheft, pp 34–35

  15. Cil AP, Bang H, Oktay K (2013) Age-specific probability of live birth with oocyte cryopreservation: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 100(2):492–9.e3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF et al (2015) Outcomes of fresh and cryopreserved oocyte donation. Am Med Assoc 6(334):623–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bundesausschuss der Ärzte und Krankenkassen (2014) Richtlinien des Bundesausschusses der Ärzte und Krankenkassen über ärztliche Maßnahmen zur künstlichen Befruchtung: Richtlinien über künsttliche Befruchtung 2014, pp 1–12

  18. Potdar N, Gelbaya TA, Nardo LG (2014) Oocyte vitrification in the 21st century and post-warming fertility outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online 29(2):159–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. (2018) Geschäftsstelle Deutsches IVF-Register e.V. Alle plausiblen Kryo-Zyklen 2015. Email 2018

  20. Wang YA, Farquhar C, Sullivan EA (2012) Donor age is a major determinant of success of oocyte donation/recipient programme. Hum Reprod 27(1):118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hunault CC, Habbema JDF, Eijkemans MJC et al (2004) Two new prediction rules for spontaneous pregnancy leading to live birth among subfertile couples, based on the synthesis of three previous models. Hum Reprod 19(9):2019–2026

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nawroth F (2015) Social freezing: kryokonservierung unbefruchteter eizellen aus nicht-medizinischen indikationen. Springer, pp 1–16

  23. proFertilität. Kosten der Eizellkonservierung. Available at: Accessed 27 Apr 2018

  24. iZelle. Was kostet Social Freezing. Available at: Accessed 27 Apr 2018

  25. Seracell Pharma. Preise und Leistungen. Available at: Accessed 27 Apr 2018

  26. der Heilberufe B (1982) Besonderes Verwaltungsrecht. GOÄ, Gebührenordnung für Ärzte

    Google Scholar 

  27. R Core Team (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  28. Plötzsch O, Weinmann J, Haustein T (2012) Geburtenentwicklung und Familiensituation in Deutschland 2012.

  29. Hodes-Wertz B, Druckenmiller S, Smith M et al (2013) What do reproductive-age women who undergo oocyte cryopreservation think about the process as a means to preserve fertility? Fertil Steril 100(5):1343–1349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. van Noord-Zaadstra BM, Looman CWN, Alsbach H et al (1991) Delaying childbearing: effect of age on fecundity and outcome of pregnancy. BMJ 302:1361–1365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dunson DB, Baird DD, Colombo B (2004) Increased infertility with age in men and women. Obstet Gynecol 103(1):51–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



KCM: Project development, manuscript writing, data collection and analysis. GBH: Manuscript writing and editing, data management. WU: Manuscript writing and editing. ZV: Project development, manuscript writing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. M. Klüber.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klüber, C.M., Greene, B.H., Wagner, U. et al. Cost-effectiveness of social oocyte freezing in Germany: estimates based on a Markov model. Arch Gynecol Obstet 301, 823–829 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: