Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Interesting Article

In Ontario IVF is not covered unless a woman has bilaterally blocked tubes. This article offers an argument for our government paying for IVF. It offers the idea of covering single embryo transfer IVFs because it is a much cheaper alternative to the use of fertility drugs without IVF and the high instance of multiples. The argument being that with multiples, they are usually high-risk pregnancies requiring more care, predominantly premature births require more assistance and longer hospital stays. This all adds up from a cost perspective - which is covered by the government. So, it's a cheaper alternative to cover the cost of IVF.

Oh, and recently, our government decided to cover sex change operations. Yet, fertility is still not deemed a necessary issue. I talked about that here.

I think all fertility treatments and drugs should be covered. What are your thought?


Lost in Space said...

Of course I am all for IF treatments being covered. (:

I hate that things like Viagra and abortions are covered, but infertility (even with diagnosed medical conditions) doesn't get a dime from so many insurance companies. Blows. Me. Away.

Arpee said...

Hi, I found you from Mel's (Stirrup) list of 35+ IF'ers.

I definitely think all IF treatments should be covered. And it is indeed puzzling that sex change operations are covered and IF treatments are not! Where is the logic in that?

Andrea said...

I completely agree with you! IF is a medical condition that we can't control (and we would be very happy to get rid of it if we could) and, therefore, your government should cover it as they would any other medical condition.

I am outraged that an elective sex change procedure is covered and IF is not. Refreakindiculous!