British health system: IVF eligibility a whole six months
posted at 12:55 pm on June 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
For those who still think Canada and “England” have great health-care systems where patients can just walk into clinics and get treatment, this story from “England” should remind those as to what a single-payer system actually does. It limits costs by rationing treatment, not by making it more available, and Britain’s NHS gives us an object lesson. They have now limited in-vitro fertilization access to women of a specific age range — and a very, very narrow one at that (via The Corner):
Infertile women have been told they can only have IVF treatment if they are aged between 39 and a half and 40.
The ‘cruel and bizarre’ restrictions were put in place by NHS managers in North Yorkshire struggling to deal with a huge deficit at their health trust.
It could mean women with severe fertility problems to wait years for one cycle of IVF treatment. …
The rules were greeted with incredulity by charities.
Susan Seenan, from Infertility Network UK, said: ‘This policy really is one of the worst we have ever encountered amid the postcode lottery for IVF.
‘We have seen some bad policies in other parts of the country, but this is not just cruel, it is bizarre, and it flies in the face of the medical evidence that the best treatment for fertility is to start early.’
Bizarre is certainly one word for it. The six-month window means that women can at best only get one cycle of IVF treatment before their expiration date. Few women have the fortune to only need one cycle, though, which means it will mostly be useless. It also forces women with diagnosed fertility issues at young ages to wait years just to get that first cycle.
Why did they put these restrictions in place? IVF treatments cost a fortune, thanks to the high cost of technology and the lack of specialists in the NHS system to provide it. Instead of using free-market mechanisms to increase supply, though, the NHS in this area has rationed the treatment into virtual non-existence. It saves costs by denying treatment to patients who need it.
Get used to that approach as ObamaCare gets applied in the US. That’s exactly what “comparative effectiveness” mechanisms are meant to do — deny care based on the decisions of beancounters in Washington rather than decisions made by doctors and their patients. It’s the ultimate in elitism, where self-apppointed mullahs of medicine tell you whether treating you is worth the bother, or as in this case, whether you’re worthy of assisted reproduction.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
AnninCA says: Give me my binky!
lorien1973 on June 29, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Wake up America!!!
cmsinaz on June 29, 2009 at 12:57 PM
That’s really only half the point, though, isn’t it?
It may be expensive. It may not work. But I’d like to make the decision for myself to try it or not. Not have that decision forced upon me.
lorien1973 on June 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM
I suppose it proves a point.
AbaddonsReign on June 29, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I feel for those who cannot conceive otherwise and may find myself in their position when I try to have kids, but there are so many children without parents who need one; that combined with moral dilemmas posed by those carrying eight children, makes me much less sympathetic here, especially after the Octomom issue.
Which isn’t to say I’d want this here or think governments should be able to make that decision for other people.
Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM
I thought reproductive rights meant the right to reproduce.
fourdeucer on June 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM
So, women who have problems conceiving in their mid-20s are SOL?
Hope AND Change, people.
Techie on June 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Shouldn’t they be encouraging the birth of future taxpayers to fund the welfare state?
myrenovations on June 29, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Less native Britons…what’s the problem? /sarc
WashJeff on June 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Maybe some people don’t want to burden themselves with the produce of others’ defective DNA?
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Wonder what the wait is on getting an abortion?
cntrlfrk on June 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Plenty of US insurance plans specifically exclude infertility treatments. I would guess most people manage to pay out of pocket even though pricey.
MRegine on June 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM
This is offset by the benefit to environment by having less people pollute the planet.
WashJeff on June 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I know a school teacher down here in Atlanta; my daughter’s teacher actually, is originally from the UK.
We had an extensive discussion before the election last fall, that put Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW) in to office.
By nature, she admitted she was a “liberal”. But she told me she was worried by what she new Obama (PBUH) and the Democrats would do to Healthcare in this country, once they controlled all three branches of the the Government.
She told me the story of her Grandmother, who as in her late 70′s, and who was increasingly struggling with Alzheimers.
Eventually, the “Healthcare Gods” in Britain decided that she had reached the end of her useful lifespan, and they put her in a chair, in an isolated room, in the Nursing Home, and fed her “ice chips” once a day, until she “died a natural death”, of dehydration and starvation…of course!
She’s never forgiven her homeland for that, and migrated to the US as soon as he had the opportunity.
THAT is the “system” that Obama (PBUH) and the Traitor Democrats seek to Impose on this country!
We. Are. So. Screwed!
Dale in Atlanta on June 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Look at Octomom and tell me that she would have had to downgrade if she’d adopted. In fact, considering these are women who cannot produce otherwise, it’s hard to argue that their DNA is superior, even to children without parents.
I get that not everyone wants to adopt and completely support their right to use every medical possibility available to have their own children.
I’m just not as sympathetic to it.
Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Nationalized Hell-care
blatantblue on June 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM
The cultural difference here is amazing. The British just accept that treatment for medical conditions is provided by “lottery” — and one that apparently depends on what zip code you live in. Rationing is part of it. If cancer deaths are 16-25% higher in England and Canada, they just meekly accept it.
I hope that our hunger for freedom here in the U.S. is stronger than that. I would hate to see us become little sheep. Truly sad.
Outlander on June 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Amidst the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I wonder how many ‘Americans’ actually realize that they deserve all the ass-pounding fascism they’re gonna get.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM
If you can’t breed, isn’t there a chance that your DNA is defective?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM
It’s emblematic of the quality and availability of care in a socialist healthcare regime. There are “queues” (as they call it in England) for nearly every health problem. Maybe you don’t feel bad about only allowing women to have IVF treatments between ages 39.5 and 40 (assuming they win the “lottery”), but do you feel worse about similar systems limiting access to cancer treatments? How about heart disease? Knee and hip replacements? Because the same, or similar, care rationing is applied to those treatments as well.
Outlander on June 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM
First of all, I’m not a supporter of IVF in the first place. Secondly, it is not a matter of needed medical care; it is an elective proceedure (which often results in selective abortion), so I really don’t think it is something that should be covered by my tax dollar to start with.
However, if it is already covered as it is with NHS, this restriction is beyone bizarre; it is just stupid for the reason noted, making younger women wait. But that’s what you always seem to get when you put anything in the hands of politicians/bureaucrats: STUPIDITY!
No thank you!
pannw on June 29, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Indeed. There are far more non-genetic barriers, however.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Will gay couples be able to who use this method to have children with surrogates? I wouldn’t be surprised if they were given an exemption.
Rose on June 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Bozo is on tv talking cap & tax. I knew he couldn’t go a day without a press conference. It’s all he knows how to do.
Back on-topic. Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I am approaching 40, have no children, and have potential infertility issues. I do not want the government deciding whether adoption or IVF is the right path for me. Nadia Suleman is a case of someone with apparent psychological isses that found a doctor with limited ethics.
txag92 on June 29, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Please read all of my comments if you’re going to ask me questions about them (just a request that you can obviously ignore if you like). I said in both that I in no way support what’s being done in this case and in no way would want it here in the US.
I’m just not a fan of IVF. But again, I do think women who can afford it should be able to have that procedure if they want.
Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I agreed with you.
Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 1:17 PM
If some poof is too lazy to doink a chick for the purposes of reproduction – or some dyke too ornery to go for one more ride on the hobby-horse – they really have no business being parents.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM
I was born in a Petrie dish
blatantblue on June 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM
I am most sympathetic to your position. Hang in there :)
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM
txag92 on June 29, 2009 at 1:16 PM
lots of babies need adoption!
blatantblue on June 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM
It ain’t a friggin’ pop group
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM
You adopt them.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM
No biggie. If the British don’t pro-create themselves, they can just import more Muslims into their population. What could go wrong?
tommylotto on June 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM
By making women and men wait to conceive, the gubmint actually is increasing the risk of birth defects. I bet they don’t give mulligans, either.
bloggless on June 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM
ROFL
It’s funny cuz it’s true :)
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM
ed, now you know anninca is gonna see this thread and start driv’in everyboby out of the minds… curious, do you do this on purpose?
SHARPTOOTH on June 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Geez..just getting pregnant at 40??!! The kids can visit you in the “Home” before they go out to the prom.
Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM
No, silly. Reproductive rights = the right to abort AFTER you’ve reproduced.
Didn’t Obama try to argue that we’re LESS healthy than Europeans? He’s such a scam artist. If, in fact, we are less healthy it would be due to lifestyle choices — emphasis on choices — and not any lack of access to quality care. If people want to smoke and eat Twinkies all day long, they should be entitled to do so — and pay a premium that reflects that choice. Why should folks who take good care of themselves be required to subsidize those who don’t? It’s not enough we’re subsidizing the people who borrowed money they can’t pay back on a home they can’t afford, but now we’re going to subsidize people who make lousy diet and exercise decisions too? When does it end? When does personal responsibility become relevant?
NoLeftTurn on June 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM
lots of babies need adoption!
blatantblue on June 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I haven’t reached the point of wanting children. When I get there, adoption will definitely be something that I consider. However, if IVF is the path I want to go, the government shouldn’t be able to dictate to me what I can and can’t do.
txag92 on June 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Not being able to have babies is a tragedy. I have family members that were devastated when they were not able to conceive and used IVF treatments to finally do so. BUT – they did not see getting IFV treatments as a right and were willing to pay for them.
Sneaking liberalism is when everything becomes a right: housing, education, and having babies.
dpierson on June 29, 2009 at 1:25 PM
lots of babies need adoption!
blatantblue on June 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM
You adopt them.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM
I don’t have the resources for that as of now?
Does that scan with you?
blatantblue on June 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I feel strongly that the those who choose to undergo IVF should pay for it themselves due to the elective nature of the procedure, and the taxpayers should not be burdened with this cost. With that said, this article is a statement on the consequences of government-controlled healthcare, and highlights that point that many of us have made, in that rationing of healthcare is the ultimate consequence of such a system.
ICBM on June 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I agree, txag92. It isn’t the government’s place to limit your choice in this matter.
ladyingray on June 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM
just wait
if you decide to
Obama will personally tell you no
because you have too much money
or you voted McCain
or you hve a gun
blatantblue on June 29, 2009 at 1:28 PM
lots of babies need adoption!
blatantblue on June 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM
almost takes a act of god these days in this country,
SHARPTOOTH on June 29, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Not only that but there are so much fewer babies as a result, hence, fewer people the NHS has to care for in the long run. A way to cull the herd, so to speak.
Big John on June 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I know two different couples that have adopted 5 children between them…all but one was an infant.
ladyingray on June 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM
It’s people like you that infuriate me. I would rather have a 40-year-old having a child who has enough life experience to raise a baby in a safe, stable environment than a 16-year-old child having a child who will most likely be on welfare for the remainder of their days.
txag92 on June 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Limey, I was being sarcastic. It just seems that the government goes out of their way for the gay community.
Rose on June 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Jeff in WI
that was uncalled for
and I’m the king of uncalled for.
blatantblue on June 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM
It will be interesting to see Obama and the rest of the Washington elite explain why they will be EXEMPT from ObamaCare.
GarandFan on June 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Idiot.
ladyingray on June 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM
I thought adoption was the default position for prolifers in making recommendations for carrying unwanted babies to term.
a capella on June 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM
ladyingray on June 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM
thats good to hear cosidering the msm only reports those who have fame and money going off to some third world shit hole to adopt, but it’s still very hard to adopt in this country, or am i wrong?
SHARPTOOTH on June 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM
I thought that the point of NHS/socialized medicine is that you couldn’t use your own funds for your medical care? After all, that would set up a “two-tiered” system where those who can afford top-of-the-line care could buy it while the rest would be stuck with the dregs.
And we can’t have that, can we? /sarc.
March Hare on June 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Lots of red tape…and depends on the route a person takes.
ladyingray on June 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I was jus’ goofin’ around too ;)
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM
No problemo. I’m sorry that I came off as attacking you–wasn’t trying to. Your point, though, exemplifies another problem with socialist healthcare–the lack of private choice. NHS sucks up so much wealth from the British people that most cannot afford to buy private insurance (or go out-of-pocket) to afford a private IVF procedure. Thus, unless you’re filthy rich, you pretty much have to rely on NHS.
That’s why this creeping socialism business is so pernicious. A good example already of where you see this is in motorcycle helmet laws. I don’t ride motorcycles, but if I did, I’d surely wear a helmet. But a lot of people don’t… Normally you’d say “well, if he cracks his head open on the pavement and is an invalid the rest of his life, that’s his choice.” But since his choice imposes costs on us throgh social security disability and medicare, suddenly, the government now has an interest in requiring helmets to reduce the chance that the government will have to pay for long term care.
Outlander on June 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Ignore him! He’s an an idiot.
ladyingray on June 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM
That Octomom Halloween costume pic never gets old.
Disturb the Universe on June 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Jeff in WI
Hey, Dad was forty when I was born and he’s in his mid eighties and my most trusted advisor. It’s OK I thought the way you did when I was younger.
Perspectives change with age!
HoustonRight on June 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Did you know that in Massachusetts, welfare recipients are entitled to all the IVF they want at taxpayer expense?
Yup.
Rebar on June 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM
No. You can have private insurance, but you’ve gotta pay for the NHS as well.
Besides, if it wasn’t for the private sector in the UK, the NHS would have fully cratered 10 years ago.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:36 PM
From a government perspective, it is an unnecessary treatment.
It’s both expensive and it does not save anyone’s health. All it does is potentially create a new life that will then be a drain on the system as well.
It would actually make more sense for them to say that this is not a service they’re willing to provide due to the high cost/low success/elective nature of it. They don’t want to do that though because rationing it seems so much more human than denying it outright.
JadeNYU on June 29, 2009 at 1:36 PM
The solution is for the gubmint to get the hell out of the entire healthcare industry and start obeying the law.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Elective procedures like IVF shouldn’t be covered at all. If you want a kid and can’t make one naturally, pay for it out of pocket or adopt one.
jonknee on June 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Tony Blair pumped a lot of money into the NHS over the years. TO main goal was to reduce the length of waiting list for procedures. That has become the only measure the government is using to determine the success or failure of the system (not actual quality of care).
Sounds very much like the DMV, long lines = bad service, short lines = good service. With government health care you get DMV like service.
dpierson on June 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM
From a government perspective, it is an unnecessary treatment.
It’s both expensive and it does not save anyone’s health.
Spayed or Neuter Your Pets
Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM
The history of the NHS is one of a financial black hole. The lofty goals of the socialists never seemed to materialize.
Funny that. Whodathunkit?
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I don’t think anyone has every died from not having a child, but there are many people that would testify to the very real strain on both their mental and relationship health.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM
How long does one have to wait for an abortion?
I’m surprised “liberals” aren’t jumping over this. Doesn’t this kind of discriminate against poor, infertile women that want children? I guess if you can’t afford to go to another country for IVF, you just don’t get a kid – from your own genetic pool.
I wonder if the British fund designer children…
IF Obamacare passes should we push for government funding of IVF?
Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM
One bipartisan argument would be to then encourage adoption…
Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Aren’t there certain religious groups against IVF? Do they have to send tax payer money in to pay for it?
Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM
My sister in law is due with twins in 2 months, that would not be the case if this were imposed on her. I also have at least one friend who has had IVF, and she has children because of it.
Dash on June 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 1:47 PM
I suppose the same argument could be made for some sex change operations.
a capella on June 29, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Or perhaps it is none of any politicians damned business?
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM
As long as they aren’t funding it, it’s not.
Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Yes. I suppose so.
An insurance company would have to be barking mad to cover it, though.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Indeed. That’s the point. They shouldn’t be funding it, legislating it, or even wasting any time talking about it.
It ain’t their job.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Geez..just getting pregnant at 40??!! The kids can visit you in the “Home” before they go out to the prom.
Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at
First: So what exactly is the cutoff age? Second: 41 + 18 = 59.
Jed_Eckert on June 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Those are some l33t sk1llz
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Never said it was.
This is the same guy who said that a good Iranian is a dead one (after having said the same of Iraqis only to be told Iran was the subject of the thread).
I think he dethroned you some time ago.
I appreciate that.
Agreed, and that’s a problem.
Don’t be so crazy.
Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM
I thought pro-lifers were against IVF because it creates a bunch of embryos that have no where to go? That’s “life” just waiting in the freezer to be “killed”.
jonknee on June 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Sleep implies life.
spmat on June 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Not all pro-lifers. And some pro-lifers are inspired by “snowflake” babies.
myrenovations on June 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM
I am pretty sure that in Canada (or at least in most provinces) IVF is not even covered, just like it is not even covered by most private insurers in the US.
The Canada Health Act provides that the state has a monopoly on major necessary treatments – and this isn’t, though it is highly desirable for people who need it.
holdfast on June 29, 2009 at 2:19 PM
It should be an entire zero millenia.
corona on June 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
The Catholic Church is opposed to IVF as well as abortion. As a Catholic I vehemently oppose my tax dollars being shelled out to groups like Planned Parenthood and will feel the same way about my taxes being spent on IVF.
Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
So Catholics (and other religious groups), Libertarians, and Women’s Rights groups are definitely against this…
Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Obama would no doubt add the provision that you aren’t allowed to reproduce in this (or any other) fashion unless you are a card carrying liberal.
Spiritk9 on June 29, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I can’t speak for anyone else, but yes, Cathoilcs are definitely opposed to IVF and other forms of artificial conception.
As to women’s rights groups, that’s code these days for pro-abortion groups. While they are in favor of abortion they are also in favor of IVF and other “reproductive rights” issues.
Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Oh, that’s right… they don’t use the “It’s my body my choice,” argument anymore… Now that they want to regulate the female body…
Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM
It is so strange to me that on one hand you have people screaming that taxpayers should pay for women to abort their unborn children because they don’t want to be pregnant, and on the other, people want taxpayers to pay for women to have extraordinary measures in order to get pregnant. What a screwed up world.
Conceived in a petrie dish, but you were born from your mother’s womb. I’m glad, for what it’s worth.
My problems with IVF are mostly tied to all the ones who never make it out of the petrie dish, or who are ‘weeded’ out when too many take root. :( So yes, jonknee on June 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM And not ashamed to admit it, thank you very much.
From all statistics I find out of the UK, abortion is the only ‘medical procedure’ they aren’t rationing. *mourns for the former Great Britain*
Though there are signs of hope. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6558823.stm
That is two years ago. Any Brits know if that is still an issue? Rationing due to conscientious objection on the part of doctors…awesome.
It is over a year old, but I’d be very curious in light of this post.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-511480/NHS-pay-surrogates-15-000-babies-gays.html
They pay for sex change operations don’t they? I know I saw a youtube video on that somewhere. Something about a woman who needed help for a kidney infection and couldn’t get it before she lost the kidney, yet somebody got the sex change?
pannw on June 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I’d think Women’s Rights groups are against what’s being done in Britain but would support tax payer funded IVF treatments just like they support tax payer funded abortions. But they’re hard to gauge sometimes.
Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I would say that anyone with that attitude is the one with defective DNA.
KrisinNE on June 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM
That’s unfair. There could be a genetic issue that manifests as infertility.
LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:40 PM
LimeyGeek wrote:
That sounds like the public school racket.
Ampleforth on June 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Well, Unrepentant may not have phrased it very artfully, but from a religious perspective, there’s partial truth to what he says. My wife and I have no children, not by choice, we just simply never conceived. Is it defective DNA? I don’t really know. What I do know however is that it is God’s will and I’m comfortable with that.
Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »