Cited by 57Reproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Health and ContraceptionHealthcare Policy and Management

Access to and use of infertility services in the United States: framing the challenges

Open access
Adashi, Eli Y., Dean, Laura A.·2016·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.017

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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.
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
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