Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Live Baby or Your Money Back: The Marketing of In Vitro Fertilization Procedures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility

  • 2908 Accesses

Abstract

Many clinics that offer in vitro fertilization (IVF) have begun to market the following options to couples: (1) an a la carte program where the couple pays $7,500 per attempt regardless of the outcome; or (2) a money-back-guarantee program where the couple pays a $15,000 fee that covers up to three attempts, however, if after three cycles there is no live-birth delivery, then the full $15,000 is refunded.

We assess the a la carte versus the money-back-guarantee programs, and find the surprising result that the money-back-guarantee program appears (for the patients) to be “too good to be true.” That is, the money-back guarantee yields a substantial negative expected profit per couple for the clinics. More importantly, from the patients’ perspective, the money-back guarantee is the better option for all couples with less than 0.5 success probability per cycle. Virtually, all traditional IVF patients have had per-cycle success probabilities below 0.5.

A detailed analysis of the key variables - i.e., success rate per attempt heterogeneity of couples’ rates of success, individual couples’ “learning” on successive attempts, and cost to the clinic per attempt - shows that these money-back guarantees are unprofitable for the clinics. Since presumably, clinics are not in business to lose money, the standard analysis must be missing something major. We suggest that the marketing of money-back guarantees is inducing couples who would previously have used - successfully - other less invasive procedures with fewer side effects and less risk of multiple births to decide to proceed directly to IVF, and that this scenario makes the money-back guarantees profitable for the clinics.

The implications of earlier use of IVF are then considered from an overall public policy point of view. Just as mothers everywhere tell their children, “When something looks too good to be true, then it is too good to be true!”

(Marketing; In Vitro; Assisted Reproduction; Health Care Marketing)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Davis K (1996) The agonizing price of infertility. In: Kiplinger Online, www.kiplinger.com, pp 1-7

  2. Freudenheim M (1998) Aetna is reducing fertility benefits: advanced treatment coverage is eliminated by a pioneer. The New York Times, 1998 January 10; Sect. 1-11

    Google Scholar 

  3. Robertson JA, Schneyer TJ (1997) Professional self-regulation and shared-risk programs for in vitro fertilization. J Law Med Ethics 25(4):283-291, 231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rubin AJ, Zitner A (2000) Infertility cases spur an illicit drug market. Los Angeles Times, 2000; Sect. 20, 2

    Google Scholar 

  5. Traftord A (1997) Medicine’s money back warranty. The Washington Post, 1997 August 5; Sect. 06

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hyman DA, Silver C (1998) Letter to the Editor. J Law Med Ethics : 94-95

    Google Scholar 

  7. Murray TH (1997) Money-back guarantees for 1 W: an ethical critique. J Law Med Ethics 25:292-294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Norris P (1997) The many lives made miserable by a low-down high-roller. The New York Times, 1997 March 9; Sect. 7

    Google Scholar 

  9. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009) Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Report: National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/ART/Marquee.aspx

  10. Gleicher N, VanderLaan B, Pratt D, Karande V (1996) Background pregnancy rates in an infertile population. Hum Reprod 11(5):1011-1012

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. (1996) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1994 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 66(5):697-705

    Google Scholar 

  12. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1996) Clinic specific report for 1994. ASRM, Birmingham, AL

    Google Scholar 

  13. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009) Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Report: National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/ART/Marquee.aspx

  14. Friedler S, Mashiach S, Laufer N (1992) Births in Israel resulting from in-vitro fertilization/embryo transfer, 1982-1989: National Registry of the Israeli Association for Fertility Research. Hum Reprod 7(8):1159-1163

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haan G, Rutten F (1989) No cure, no pay: an acceptable way of financing fertility treatments? Health Policy 13:239-249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Strictly Business (1997) “The Newshour With Jim Lehrer: Monday, January 27, 1997”, Overland Park, KS: Strictly Business

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dawood MY (1996) In vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, and superovulation with intrauterine insemination: efficacy and potential health hazards on babies delivered. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174(4):1208-1217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. (1996) Infertility revisited: the state of the art today and tomorrow. The ESHRE Capri Workshop. European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Hum Reprod 11:1779-1807

    Google Scholar 

  19. Golombok S (1992) Psychological functioning in infertility patients. Hum Reprod 7(2):208-212

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stolberg SG (1997) For the infertile, a high-tech treadmill. The New York Times, 1997; Sect. 1, 36

    Google Scholar 

  21. Haan G, Bernardus RE, Hans MG et al (1991) Selective drop-out in successive in-viro fertilization attempts: the pendulum danger. Hum Reprod 6(7):939-943

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Diczfalusy E, Crosignani PG (1996) Introduction: from reproductive endocrinology to reproductive health. The short history of a new departure by ESHRE. European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Hum Reprod 11(8):1776-1777

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wagner MG, St Clair PA (1989) Are in-vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer of benefit to all? Lancet 2(8670):1027-1030

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Haan G, van Steen R (1992) Costs in relation to effects of in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 7(7):982-986

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hann G, Bernardus RE, Hollanders JMG, Leerentveld RA, Prak FM, Naaktgeboren N (1991) Results of IVF from a prospective multicenter study. Hum Reprod 6(6):805-810

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stolwijk AM, Hamilton CJ, Hollanders JM, Bastiaans LA, Zielhuis GA (1996) A more realistic approach to the cumulative pregnancy rate after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 11(3):660-663

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhou H, Weinberg CR, Wilcox AJ, Baird DD (1996) A random-effects model for cycle viability in fertility studies. J Am Stat Assoc 91(436):1413-1422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. RESOLVE (1997) RESOLVE National Newsletter. Volume 22, No.1 (Winter). Somerville, MA: RESOLVE

    Google Scholar 

  29. Maritz J (1970) Empirical Bayes methods. Methuen, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  30. Griffiths DA (1973) Maximum likelihood estimation for the beta-binomial distribution and an application to the household distribution of the total number of cases of a disease. Biometrics 29(4):637-648

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Greene JD (1982) Consumer behavior models for non-statisticians. Praeger, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Crowder MJ (1978) Beta-binomial ANOVA for proportions. Appl Stat 27(1):34-37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tan SL, Doyle P, Maconochie N et al (1994) Pregnancy and birth rates of live infants after in vitro fertilization in women with an without previous in vitro fertilization pregnancies: a study of eight thousand cycles at one center. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170(1 Pt 1):34-40

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hershlag A, DeCherney AH, Kaplan EH, Lavy G, Loy RA (1991) Heterogeneity in patient populations explains differences in in vitro fertilization programs. Fertil Steril 56:913-917

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Check JH, Lurie D, Callan C, Baker A, Benfer K (1994) Comparison of the cumulative probability of pregnancy after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer by infertility factor and age. Fertil Steril 61(2):257-261

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Alsalili M, Yuzpe A, Tummon I et al (1995) Cumulative pregnancy rates and pregnancy outcome after in-vitro fertilization: >5000 cycles at one centre. Hum Reprod 10(2):470-474

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schmittlein DC (1989) Surprising inferences from unsurprising observations: do conditional expectations really regress to the mean? Am Stat 43(3):176-183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tan SL, Maconochie N, Doyle P et al (1994) Cumulative conception and live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization with and without the use of long, short, and ultrashort regimens of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist buserelin. Am J Obstet Gynecol 171(2):513-520

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Thaler RH, Johnson EJ (1990) Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Manage Sci 36:643-660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Johnson, NL, Kotz, S (1970) Continuous univariate distributios - 2. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate helpful comments contri­buted by Eric Bradlow, Barbara Kalm, Mary Frances Luce, and the participants of the 1998 UCLA Winter Marketing Camp.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MIT Sloan School of Management, E52-473, 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA

    David C. Schmittlein

  2. Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Donald G. Morrison

Authors
  1. David C. Schmittlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donald G. Morrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David C. Schmittlein .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, University of Utah, Arapeen Dr. 675, Salt Lake City, 84108, USA

    Douglas T. Carrell

  2. School of Medicine, University of Utah, North Medical Drive 50, Salt Lake City, 84132, USA

    C. Matthew Peterson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmittlein, D.C., Morrison, D.G. (2010). A Live Baby or Your Money Back: The Marketing of In Vitro Fertilization Procedures. In: Carrell, D., Peterson, C. (eds) Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1436-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1436-1_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1435-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1436-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation