Comparison of Low Cost Versus Conventional Assisted Reproductive Technology Treatment: A Prospective Micro Costing Study

Abstract

Objective: Among multiple barriers for infertility treatment, the major deterrent appears to be the high cost of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Low-cost ART employing mild stimulation protocols among other cost cutting measures has been advocated in resource limited settings. In the current study, we compared the actual cost incurred for conventional and low-cost ART treatment. Study Design: Prospective micro-costing study at a university-level infertility unit, including women undergoing conventional and low-cost ART. The data collection for micro-costing was done primarily through direct observation of the resources utilized and time involved on a prospective basis. Only direct medical cost involved in ART treatment was calculated. The outcome measures included the cost per cycle and cost per clinical pregnancy. Results: The average cost per couple per initiated cycle for the conventional ART was almost 50% higher as compared to low-cost ART ($1,433 vs. $739). The cost per clinical pregnancy per initiated cycle for conventional ART was lower compared to low-cost ART ($4248 vs. $4960). In a limited number of patients, the clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer was 40% (2/5 patients) in the conventional cycle as compared to 17% (1/6) in the low-cost ART cycle. Conclusion: Using mild stimulation protocol in the low-cost ART program resulted in reduction in actual cost per cycle to almost half, but the cost per clinical pregnancy was higher compared to conventional ART.

Keywords

• low cost art
• conventional art
• cost