Hi Everyone-

I saw this interesting article in the NYT this morning. While there are way, WAY more issues at play than just costs (religion, morals, reproductive choice, etc), I was struck by the fact that, at least in individual anecdotes, that insurance companies end up spending much more money caring for the often premature babies born as multiples from intrauterine insemination, rather than paying for the more expensive IVF treatments up front. This touches on a few of the different themes we've discussed in class:

-I know that this is not at all a case where we would say that IVF is a "preventive" measure, but it does raise questions about investing dollars upstream rather than downstream.
-This raises some issues about cost-effectiveness research, and how it relates to patient demand. If couples were to be given cost-effectiveness data on the different fertility treatments, do you think demand for any of these types of treatments would go down?
-What about the idea of including pain and suffering estimations in cost-effectiveness research? Here comes controversy! I don't think Americans would ever accept being told you could put a "price on life," or that we would ever be comfortable with some research board deciding the monetary value of a life that is going under extensive medical treatments. Just look at how much we value keeping an elderly person alive for a few days, even if she is barely conscious and hooked up to tubes in the ICU.

I know that fertility treatments and reproductive choice are a controversial issue...just want to see what others out there might be thinking.