In vitro fertilization: a cross-sectional analysis of 58 US insurance companies.

PURPOSE: Infertility affects one in eight women in the USA. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is an effective but costly treatment that lacks uniform insurance coverage. We evaluated the current insurance coverage landscape for IVF in America. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 58 insurance companies with the greatest state enrollment and market share, calculated to represent the majority of Americans with health insurance. Individual companies were evaluated for a publicly available policy on IVF services by web-based search, telephone interview, or email to the insurer. Coverage status, required criteria, qualifying risk factors, and contraindications to coverage were extracted from available policies. RESULTS: Fifty-one (88%) of the fifty-eight companies had a policy for IVF services. Thirty-five (69%) of these policies extended coverage. Case-by-case coverage was stated in seven policies (14%), while coverage was denied in the remaining nine (18%). The most common criterion to receive coverage was a documented diagnosis of infertility (n = 23, 66%), followed by care from a reproductive endocrinologist (n = 9, 26%). Twenty-three (45%) of the companies with a policy had at least one contraindication to coverage. Three companies (6%) limited the number of IVF cycles to be covered, capping payments after 3-4 lifetime cycles. CONCLUSION: Most Americans with health insurance are provided a public policy regarding IVF. However, there is great variation in coverage and requirements to receive coverage between insurers. Coupled with inconsistencies in state-level mandates and available choices for employer-sponsored plans, this may limit coverage of IVF services and, therefore, access to infertility treatment.

Successful use of CPAP in a pregnant patient with COVID-19 pneumonia.

A 35-year-old nurse, who was 27 weeks pregnant at the time, was admitted to hospital with a short history of cough, fever and worsening shortness of breath. Oral and nasopharyngeal swabs were positive for SARS-CoV-2 on real-time viral PCR. During her admission, her breathing further deteriorated and she developed type 1 respiratory failure. A decision was made to trial treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as a means of avoiding intubation. The patient tolerated this well and made rapid improvements on this therapy. She was quickly weaned off and fully recovered before being discharged home. This case highlights the potential for CPAP to be used as a means of avoiding mechanical ventilation and iatrogenic preterm birth in COVID-19 pneumonia in pregnancy. Furthermore, it highlights the need for robust evidence to support this treatment.