Access to and use of infertility services in the United States: framing the challenges
Open accessAbstract
An overview of access to and use of general infertility and assisted reproductive technology (ART) services in the United States (U.S.) shows a declining trend for the ever-use of infertility services. Moreover, the use of ART services lags relative to other member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Access to and use of general infertility and ART services is primarily undermined by a severely constrained underwriting universe dominated by self-insured employers and by a finite number of state infertility insurance mandates. The contribution of traditional public and private payers to the underwriting of ART is limited. As compared with OECD member nations wherein the access to and underwriting of general infertility and ART services is universal, the current status quo in the U.S. can only be characterized as dismal. Further, the current state of affairs is socially unjust in that the right to build a family in the face of infertility appears to have become a function of economic prowess. Given the dominance of the self-insured employers as underwriters of general infertility and ART services, advocacy directed at this interest group is likely to prove most productive. Improving the state of underwriting of general infertility and ART services in the U.S. must be embraced as a central moral imperative and as an unwavering strategic goal of the professional societies entrusted with the reproductive health of women and men.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It is essential to compare similar metrics when assessing ART utilization.
“It is essential to compare similar metrics when assessing utilization (Adashi and Dean, 2016; Dyer et al., 2020; Kawwass et al., 2021; Beroukhim et al., 2022).”
From Declining global fertility rates and the implications for family planning and family building: an IFFS consensus document based on a narrative review of the literature (2024) · cites this paper as Adashi and Dean, 2016
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 17 · Cited by 57
- Authors
- Adashi, E. Y., & Dean, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Brown University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Adashi, Eli Y.
- ORCID
- Adashi, Eli Y.
- Venue
- Fertility and Sterility
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1113-1118
- ISSN
- 0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2258492880
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
- Keywords
- infertility services, assisted reproduction, health care access, health insurance coverage, self-insured employers, health care financing, social justice, OECD comparison, United States
- MeSH terms
- Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Infertility, Male, United States, Insurance Coverage, Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review