Despite the growing use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) worldwide, there is only a limited understanding of the economics of ART to inform policy about effective, safe and equitable financing of ART treatment. A review was undertaken of key studies regarding the costs and consequences of ART treatment, specifically examining the direct and indirect costs of treatment, economic drivers of utilization and clinical practice and broader economic consequences of ART-conceived children. The direct costs of ART treatment vary substantially between countries, with the USA standing out as the most expensive. The direct costs generally reflect the costliness of the underlying healthcare system. If unsubsidized, direct costs represent a significant economic burden to patients. The level of affordability of ART treatment is an important driver of utilization, treatment choices, embryo transfer practices and ultimately multiple birth rates. The costs associated with caring for multiple-birth ART infants and their mothers are substantial, reflecting the underlying morbidity associated with such pregnancies. Investment analysis of ART treatment and ART-conceived children indicates that appropriate funding of ART services appears to represent sound fiscal policy. The complex interaction between the cost of ART treatment and how treatments are subsidized in different healthcare settings and for different patient groups has far-reaching consequences for ART utilization, clinical practice and infant outcomes. A greater understanding of the economics of ART is needed to inform policy decisions and to ensure the best possible outcomes from ART treatment.

BACKGROUND: The widespread interest in male reproductive health (MRH), fueled by emerging evidence, such as the global decline in sperm counts, has intensified concerns about the status of MRH. Consequently, there is a pressing requirement for a strategic, systematic approach to identifying critical questions, collecting pertinent information, and utilizing these data to develop evidence-based strategies. The methods for addressing these questions and the pathways toward their answers will inevitably vary based on the variations in cultural, geopolitical, and health-related contexts. To address these issues, a conjoint ESHRE and Male Reproductive Health Initiative (MRHI) Campus workshop was convened. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The three objectives were: first, to assess the current state of MRH around the world; second, to identify some of the key gaps in knowledge; and, third, to examine how MRH stakeholders can collaboratively generate intelligent and effective paths forward. SEARCH METHODS: Each expert reviewed and summarized the current literature that was subsequently used to provide a comprehensive overview of challenges related to MRH. OUTCOMES: This narrative report is an overview of the data, opinions, and arguments presented during the workshop. A number of outcomes are presented and can be summarized by the following overarching themes: MRH is a serious global issue and there is a plethora of gaps in our understanding; there is a need for widespread international collaborative networks to undertake multidisciplinary research into fundamental issues, such as lifestyle/environmental exposure studies, and high-quality clinical trials; and there is an urgent requirement for effective strategies to educate young people and the general public to safeguard and improve MRH across diverse population demographics and resources. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a workshop where worldwide leading experts from a wide range of disciplines presented and discussed the evidence regarding challenges related to MRH. While each expert summarized the current literature and placed it in context, the data in a number of areas are limited and/or sparse. Equally, important areas for consideration may have been missed. Moreover, there are clear gaps in our knowledge base, which makes some conclusions necessarily speculative and warranting of further study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Poor MRH is a global issue that suffers from low awareness among the public, patients, and heathcare professionals. Addressing this will require a coordinated multidisciplinary approach. Addressing the significant number of knowledge gaps will require policy makers prioritizing MRH and its funding. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The authors would like to extend their gratitude to ESHRE for providing financial support for the Budapest Campus Workshop, as well as to Microptic S.L. (Barcelona) for kindly sponsoring the workshop. P.B. is the Director of the not-for-profit organization Global Action on Men’s Health and receives fees and expenses for his work, (which includes the preparation of this manuscript). Conflicts of interest: C.J.D.J., C.L.R.B., R.A.A., P.B., M.P.C., M.L.E., N.G., N.J., C.K., AAP, M.K.O., S.R.-H., M.H.V.-L.: ESHRE Campus Workshop 2022 (Travel support—personal). C.J.D.J.: Cambridge University Press (book royalties—personal). ESHRE Annual Meeting 2022 and Yale University Panel Meeting 2023 (Travel support—personal). C.L.R.B.: Ferring and IBSA (Lecture), RBMO editor (Honorarium to support travel, etc.), ExSeed and ExScentia (University of Dundee), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (for research on contraception). M.P.C.: Previously received funding from pharmaceutical companies for health economic research. The funding was not in relation to this work and had no bearing on the contents of this work. No funding from other sources has been provided in relation to this work (funding was provided to his company Global Market Access Solutions). M.L.E.: Advisor to Ro, Doveras, Next, Hannah, Sandstone. C.K.: European Academy of Andrology (Past president UNPAID), S.K.: CEO of His Turn, a male fertility Diagnostic and Therapeutic company (No payments or profits to date). R.I.M.: www.healthymale.org.au (Australian Government funded not for profit in men’s health sector (Employed as Medical Director 0.2 FET), Monash IVF Pty Ltd (Equity holder)). N.J.: Merck (consulting fees), Gedeon Richter (honoraria). S.R.-H.: ESHRE (Travel reimbursements). C.N.: LLC (Nursing educator); COMMIT (Core Outcomes Measures for Infertility Trials) Advisor, meeting attendee, and co-author; COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) Meeting attendee, and co-author; International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Delegate Letters and Sciences; ReproNovo, Advisory board; American Board of Urology Examiner; American Urological Association Journal subsection editor, committee member, guidelines co-author Ferring Scientific trial NexHand Chief Technology Officer, stock ownership Posterity Health Board member, stock ownership. A.P.: Economic and Social Research Council (A collaborator on research grant number ES/W001381/1). Member of an advisory committee for Merck Serono (November 2022), Member of an advisory board for Exceed Health, Speaker fees for educational events organized by Mealis Group; Chairman of the Cryos External Scientific Advisory Committee: All fees associated with this are paid to his former employer The University of Sheffield. Trustee of the Progress Educational Trust (Unpaid). M.K.O.: National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council (Funding for research of the topic of male fertility), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Funding aimed at the development of male gamete-based contraception), Medical Research Future Fund (Funding aimed at defining the long-term consequences of male infertility). M.H.V.-L.: Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and...

Over the past decade, demand for fertility treatments has increased as a result of delaying time to first pregnancy and growing awareness and acceptance of available treatment options. Despite increasing demand, health authorities often view infertility as a low health priority and consequently limit access to treatments by rationing and limiting funds. To assess the long-term economic benefits attributed to in vitro fertilization (IVF)-conceived children, we developed a health investment model to evaluate whether state-funded IVF programmes in the UK represent sound fiscal policies. Based on the average investment cost to conceive an IVF singleton, we describe the present value of net taxes derived from gross taxes paid minus direct government transfers received (e.g. education, health, pension) over the lifetime of the child. To establish the present value of investing in IVF, we have discounted all costs from benefits (i.e. lifetime taxes paid) using UK Treasury department rates based on a singleton delivery with similar characteristics for education, earnings, health and life expectancy to a naturally conceived child. The lifetime discounted value of net taxes from an IVF-conceived child with mother aged 35 is £109 939 compared with £122 127 for a naturally conceived child. The lifetime undiscounted net tax contribution for the IVF-conceived child and naturally conceived child are £603 000 and £616 000, respectively. An investment of £12 931 to achieve an IVF singleton is actually worth 8.5-times this amount to the UK Treasury in discounted future tax revenue. The analysis underscores that costs to the health sector are actually investments when a broader government perspective is considered over a longer period of time.

Background: Unintended pregnancy (UP) is an unmet medical need with consequences worldwide. We evaluate the costs of UP based on pregnancies in Brazil from for the year 2010. Methods: The consequences of UP were evaluated using decision analysis based on pregnancy rates and outcomes as miscarriage, induced abortion, and live birth, which were factored into the analysis. The model discriminated between maternal and child outcomes and accounted for costs (in Brazilian currency [Real$, R$]) within the Brazilian public health service attributed to preterm birth, neonatal admission, cerebral palsy, and neonatal and maternal mortality. Event probabilities were obtained from local resources. Results: We estimate that 1.8 million UPs resulted in 159,151 miscarriages, 48,769 induced abortions, 1.58 million live births, and 312 maternal deaths, including ten (3%) attributed to unsafe abortions. The total estimated costs attributed to UP are R$4.1 billion annually, including R$32 million (0.8%) and R$4.07 billion (99.2%) attributed to miscarriages and births and complications, respectively. Direct birth costs accounted for approximately R$1.22 billion (30.0%), with labor and delivery responsible for most costs (R$988 million; 24.3%) for the year 2010. The remainder of costs were for infant complications (R$2.84 billion; 72.3%) with hospital readmission during the first year accounting for approximately R$2.15 billion (52.9%). Based on the national cost, we estimate the cost per UP to be R$2,293. Conclusion: Despite weaknesses in precise estimates in annual pregnancies and induced abortions, our estimates reflect the costs of UP for different pregnancy outcomes. The main costs associated with UP are in those carried to parturition. The health cost of abortion represents a small proportion of total costs as these are paid for outside of the public health system. Consequently, reductions in UP will generate not only cost savings, but reductions in woman and child morbidity and mortality.

Background: Perioperative administration of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) was previously shown to reduce both the need for transfusions and the hospital length of stay in patients with preoperative iron deficiency anemia (IDA). In this study, we estimated the economic consequences of perioperative administration using FCM vs usual care in patients with IDA from the perspective of a German hospital using decision-analytic modeling. Materials and methods: The model was populated with clinical inputs (transfusion rates, blood units transfused, hospital length of stay) from a previously reported randomized trial comparing FCM vs usual care for managing IDA patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery. We applied a hospital perspective to all costs, excluding surgery-related costs in both treatment arms. One-way sensitivity analyses were undertaken to evaluate key drivers of cost analysis. Results: The average costs per case treated using FCM compared to usual care were €2,461 and €3,246, respectively, for resource expenses paid by hospital per case. This would suggest potential savings achieved with preoperative intravenous iron treatment per patient of €786 per case. A sensitivity analysis varying the key input parameters indicated the cost analysis is most sensitive to changes in the length of stay and the cost of hospitalization per day. Conclusion: Perioperative administration of FCM results in cost savings to hospitals based on reduced blood transfusions and length of stay following elective abdominal surgery.