Business models and provider satisfaction in in vitro fertilization centers in the USA
The number of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles is increasing and the majority of patients undergoing IVF pay out of pocket. Reproductive endocrinology and infertility practitioners employ different business models to help create financial pathways for patients needing IVF but details regarding the different types of business models being used and physician satisfaction with those models have not been described previously.
A cross-sectional survey was sent to members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. The survey included 30 questions designed to assess demographics, practice patterns, and business models utilized.
A total of 222/736 (30%) physicians responded to the survey. The majority of physicians offer a-la-carte (67%), bundled services (69%), grants (57%), and cost/risk-sharing (50%). The majority answered that the single ideal business model is bundled services (53%). There was no significant association between financial package offered and region of practice or state-mandated insurance. The largest barrier to care reported was cost with or without state-mandated coverage (94% and 99%, respectively). The majority of practices are satisfied with their business model (75%). Higher physician satisfaction was associated with private practice [69% vs 27%; OR (95%CI) = 3.8 (1.7, 8.6)], male gender [59% vs 30%; OR = 2.4 (1.1, 5.4)], and offering bundled services [83% vs 59%; OR = 2.8 (1.2, 6.7)].
Physicians utilize a variety of business models and most are satisfied with their current model. Cost is the major barrier to care in states with and without mandated coverage.
KeywordsIn vitro fertilization Business models Physician satisfaction Barriers
The project was also supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant KL2 TR001118 (JFK). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
The project described was supported by the 2016 Vivere Scientific Advisory Board Research Grant (JEM).
Compliance with ethical standards
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 4.Barnhart KT, Nakajima ST, Puscheck E, Price TM, Baker VL, Segars J. Practice patterns, satisfaction, and demographics of reproductive endocrinologists: results of the 2014 Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Workforce Survey. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(5):1281–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Cha AE. Discounts, guarantees and the search for ‘good’ genes: the booming fertility business. [Internet]. The Washington Post 2017 [cited 2017 Oct 23];Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/donor-eggs-sperm-banks-and-the-quest-for-good-genes/2017/10/21/64b9bdd0-aaa6-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.5d1dc2be69de
- 12.Seattle Fertility. Shared risk refund case studies. Vol. 4, 29 October 2006 [30 August 2015]. Available at:https://web.archive.org/web/20061029214140/http://www.seattlefertility.com/downloads/sharedRiskCaseStudies.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2016.