The impact of insurance mandates on donor oocyte utilization: an analysis of 39,338 donor oocyte cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry

Background: A total of 19 states passed legislation mandating insurance coverage of assisted reproductive technology, and out-of-pocket costs associated with in vitro fertilization vary significantly depending on the region. Consequently, it has been observed that assisted reproductive technology utilization differs regionally and is associated with the presence of an insurance mandate. However, it is unknown whether regional differences exist among patients using donor oocytes.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the patient and cycle-specific parameters associated with the use of donor oocytes according to the insurance mandate status of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology clinic in which the assisted reproductive technology cycle was performed.

Study design: This study was a retrospective cohort study using national data collected from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry for 39,338 donor oocyte cycles and 242,555 autologous oocyte cycles performed in the United States from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016. Cycles were stratified by insurance mandate of the state in which the assisted reproductive technology cycle was performed: comprehensive (coverage for at least 4 cycles of assisted reproductive technology), limited (coverage limited to 1-3 assisted reproductive technology cycles), offer (insurance mandates exist but exclude assisted reproductive technology treatment), and no mandate. The primary outcome was the number of previous autologous assisted reproductive technology cycles of the recipient. The secondary outcomes included age, serum follicle stimulating hormone level, frozen donor oocyte utilization, day of embryo transfer, number of embryos transferred, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. Analyses were adjusted for day of transfer, number of embryos transferred, and age of the recipient.

Results: Patients in no mandate states underwent fewer autologous assisted reproductive technology cycles (mean, 1.1; standard deviation, 1.6) before using donor oocytes than patients in offer (mean, 1.7; standard deviation, 2.5; P<.01), limited (mean, 1.5; standard deviation, 2.5; P<.01), and comprehensive (mean, 1.7; standard deviation, 2.0; P<.01) states. Patients in no mandate states were more likely to use frozen oocytes than patients in offer (relative risk, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.57), limited (relative risk, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.54), and comprehensive (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.99) states. Clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were similar among recipients of donor oocytes, regardless of insurance mandate.

Conclusion: Despite similar ages and ovarian reserve parameters, patients without state-mandated insurance coverage of assisted reproductive technology were more likely to use frozen donor oocytes and undergo fewer autologous in vitro fertilization cycles than their counterparts in partial or comprehensive insurance coverage states. These differences in donor oocyte utilization highlight the financial barriers associated with pursuing assisted reproductive technology in uninsured states.