Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on September 23, 2004

Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/deh531
© 2004 by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/12/2798    most recent
deh531v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Koivurova, S.
Right arrow Articles by Järvelin, M.-R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Koivurova, S.
Right arrow Articles by Järvelin, M.-R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Received December 23, 2003
Revised June 14, 2004
Accepted August 26, 2004

Article

Health care costs resulting from IVF: prenatal and neonatal periods

S. Koivurova 1*, A.-L. Hartikainen 2, M. Gissler 3, E. Hemminki 3, R. Klemetti 3, and M.-R. Järvelin 4

1 Department of Public Health Science and General Practice, University of Oulu, P.O.Box 5000, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Oulu, P.O.Box 220, 90024 Oulu, Finland
2 Department of Public Health Science and General Practice, University of Oulu, P.O.Box 5000, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
3 National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health, P.O.Box 220, 00531 Helsinki, Finland
4 Department of Public Health Science and General Practice, University of Oulu, P.O.Box 5000, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland; Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: sari.koivurova{at}oulu.fi.


   Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of expensive infertility treatments is increasing rapidly. To compare the prenatal and neonatal health care costs after IVF and spontaneous conception, we conducted a study based on a cohort of IVF and control pregnancies and neonates. METHODS: A cohort of 215 IVF mothers and 255 IVF neonates were compared with a cohort of 662 control mothers and 388 control children, randomly chosen from the Finnish Medical Birth Register and matched for sex, year of birth, area of residence, parity, maternal age, socioeconomic status and plurality. The analyses on prenatal and neonatal costs were performed by plurality. Singletons were also compared with twins. The cost calculations were based on the known level of utilization of maternal and neonatal health care services. RESULTS: The total health care costs for an IVF singleton until the end of the neonatal period were 5780 and 15 580 for an IVF twin. The health care costs were 1.3-fold for IVF singletons and 1.1-fold for IVF twins compared to control singletons and twins. The costs for twins were ~3-fold compared to singletons. CONCLUSIONS: The health care costs of an IVF singleton neonate were higher than those of a spontaneously conceived control neonate with similar backgrounds. For twins the health care costs were equal. Multiple births increase the health care costs and therefore the reduction of multiple pregnancies is the most effective way to reduce the health care costs resulting from IVF.

Keywords: costs; health care; IVF.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
Z. Veleva, P. Karinen, C. Tomas, J. S. Tapanainen, and H. Martikainen
Elective single embryo transfer with cryopreservation improves the outcome and diminishes the costs of IVF/ICSI
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2009; 24(7): 1632 - 1639.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
E. Sullivan, Y. Wang, M. Chapman, and G. Chambers
Success rates and cost of a live birth following fresh assisted reproduction treatment in women aged 45 years and older, Australia 2002-2004
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2008; 23(7): 1639 - 1643.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
M. Hansen, L. Colvin, B. Petterson, J. J. Kurinczuk, N. de Klerk, and C. Bower
Admission to hospital of singleton children born following assisted reproductive technology (ART)
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2008; 23(6): 1297 - 1305.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The Obstetrician and GynaecologistHome page
D. Siassakos, A. Syed, and P. Wardle
Tubal disease and assisted reproduction
Obstet Gynaecol (Lond), April 1, 2008; 10(2): 80 - 87.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
G. M. Chambers, M. G. Chapman, N. Grayson, M. Shanahan, and E. A. Sullivan
Babies born after ART treatment cost more than non-ART babies: a cost analysis of inpatient birth-admission costs of singleton and multiple gestation pregnancies
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2007; 22(12): 3108 - 3115.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
S. Koivurova, A.-L. Hartikainen, M. Gissler, E. Hemminki, and M.-R. Jarvelin
Post-neonatal hospitalization and health care costs among IVF children: a 7-year follow-up study
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2007; 22(8): 2136 - 2141.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
A.K. Ludwig, A. Katalinic, V. Steinbicker, K. Diedrich, and M. Ludwig
Antenatal care in singleton pregnancies after ICSI as compared to spontaneous conception: data from a prospective controlled cohort study in Germany
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2006; 21(3): 713 - 720.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
M.J.C. Eijkemans, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, C. de Klerk, J.D.F. Habbema, and B.C.J.M. Fauser
Comparison of different treatment strategies in IVF with cumulative live birth over a given period of time as the primary end-point: methodological considerations on a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2006; 21(2): 344 - 351.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.