Advertisement

Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 33, Issue 11, pp 789–794 | Cite as

Pharmaceutical Costs of Assisted Reproduction in Spain

  • Maria-Reyes LorenteEmail author
  • Juana Hernández
  • Fernando Antoñanzas
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Assisted reproduction is one of the health services currently being considered for possible limitation or exclusion from the public health services portfolio in Spain. One of the main reasons claimed for this is the impact on the budget for pharmaceutical expenditure.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the significance of the pharmaceutical costs of assisted reproduction in Spain.

Methods

This study focused on medical practice in Spain, and is based on the opinions of experts in assisted reproduction and the results provided by professional societies’ publications. The reference year is 2012 and the setting was secondary care. We have included all existing pharmaceutical modalities for assisted reproduction, as well as the most common drug for each modality. We have considered the pharmaceutical cost per cycle for artificial insemination, in vitro fertilisation with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF_ICSI), and cryotransfer and donated fresh oocytes reception.

Results

In Spain, artificial insemination has a pharmaceutical cost per cycle of between €69.36 and €873.79. This amounts to an average cycle cost of €364.87 for partner’s sperm and €327.10 for donor sperm. The pharmaceutical cost of IVF_ICSI ranges between €278.16 and €1,902.66, giving an average cost per cycle of €1,139.65. In the case of cryotransfer and donated fresh oocytes reception, the pharmaceutical cost per cycle is between €22.61 and €58.73, yielding an average cost of €40.67. The budgetary impact of pharmaceutical expenditure for assisted reproduction in Spain for the year 2012 was estimated at €98.7 million.

Conclusion

In Spain, the total pharmaceutical cost of assisted reproduction is substantial. According to our results, we can say that about 29 % of the total pharmaceutical expenditure for assisted reproduction techniques is funded by the National Health System and the rest represents 2.4 % of the total annual out-of-pocket family expenditure on drugs.

Keywords

Average Cost Ovarian Stimulation Artificial Insemination Assisted Reproduction Budgetary Impact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. The authors have no potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Supplementary material

40261_2013_123_MOESM1_ESM.doc (33 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 33 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute of Statistics in Spain. Natural movement of the population, by 2011. Births definitive. http://www.ine.es/. Accessed 18 Jan 2013.
  2. 2.
    Agramunt S, Czech MA, Carreras R. Reproductive treatment efficacy. In: Matorras R, editor. Infertility in Spain: current situation and prospects [in Spanish]. Madrid: Imago Concept & Image Development; 2011. p. 123–34.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prados F, de los Santos MJ, Cabello Y, et al. Registro de la Sociedad Española de Fertilidad: Técnicas de reproducción asistida (IA y FIV/ICSI). Año 2010. http://www.registrosef.com. Accessed 21 Dec 2012.
  4. 4.
    Melo M, Bellver J, Garrido N, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing three different gonadotropin regimens in oocyte donors: ovarian response, in vitro fertilization outcome, and analysis of cost minimization. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(3):958–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balasch J, Barri PN. Reflections on the cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH in assisted reproduction. The clinician’s perspective. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18(2):45–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balasch J, Barri PN. Thoughts on the cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH for assisted fertilization. Clinical standpoint [in Spanish]. Rev Iberoam Fertil Reprod Hum. 2000;17(5):11–20.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slof J. Cost comparison of controlled ovarian stimulation with rFSH-alfa and rFSH-beta using a pen-device [in Spanish]. Rev Iberoam Fertil Reprod Hum. 2010;27(5):399–411.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matorras R, Valladolid A, Rodriguez-Escudero FJ. The cost of assisted reproduction techniques in the public health system: the Cruces Hospital experience [in Spanish]. Rev Iberoam Fertil Reprod Hum. 2001;18(3):146–50.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Association for Social, Economics and Civil Rights (ADECES). Técnicas de reproducción asistida: La necesidad de ampliar la atención. Año 2011. http://www.adeces.org/. Accessed 1 Jan 2013.
  10. 10.
    Ruiz-Balda JA, López JM, Prieto L. Cost-effectiveness study of assisted reproduction techniques in Spain [in Spanish]. Rev Esp Econ Salud. 2005;4(2):96–102.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Romeu A, Balasch J, Ruiz-Balda JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction techniques in the English public health care system. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20(8):294–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vademecum. http://www.vademecum.es/. Accessed 23 Dec 2012.
  13. 13.
    Pharmaceutical General Council. Database price database of medicines and health products. http://www.portalfarma.com/. Accessed 27 Dec 2012.
  14. 14.
    National Institute of Statistics in Spain. National Survey of Family Budgets in 2011. http://www.ine.es/. Accessed 15 Jul 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria-Reyes Lorente
    • 1
    Email author
  • Juana Hernández
    • 2
  • Fernando Antoñanzas
    • 1
  1. 1.University of La RiojaLogroñoSpain
  2. 2.Juana Hernández Gynecology ClinicLogroñoSpain

Personalised recommendations