NHS IVF policy change

[Bambamrubblesmum]

Have you seen this?

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/rip-ivf-nhs-cuts-to-fertility-treatment-will-deny-thousands-parenthood-a6717326.html

I can see both sides of the argument but AIBU to feel very sad that it's come to this

We are all paying for it through our taxes.

But we pay less tax than other European countries that offer better healthcare. This is a choice. In 2015 the country chose a government of lower tax, lower services.

And even then in most other European countries it is typical to get at most one round of IVF treatment covered.

And this wouldn't be necessary if the NHS got the money promised by the Leave campaign.

So from where would you reduce funding to make this money available? Because the government itself acknowledges that Brexit won't actually save us money - it will cost a lot of money.

We tried IVF twice both privately as the NHS kept changing the criteria and both failed. We ended up adopting. For something that has such a low success rate, it does make more sense if the money is used to treat existing conditions rather than trying to create new life. It doesn't feel like that whilst you are in the middle of it of course and I still have days when I wish I'd had birth children but love both our kids as though they were

I think it is a great shame and heartbreaking for couples who need IVF but like others have said things like cancer treatments etc have to be prioritised
IVF is expensive but not completely impossible and there are schemes such as access fertikiybthat give you your money back if you don't have a baby. I'd imagine more of the same will emerge and couple will have options alongside saving up or using credit cards etc

Still not an ideal situation

*access fertility (sorry typing too fast)

The postcode lottery side of this is very unfair - it should be standardised across the country.

in most other European countries it is typical to get at most one round of IVF treatment covered.

In which countries? I don't know any where that is the case.

We weren't eligible for IVF (I have gynae issues that mean I could never conceive naturally but because DH has children from his first marriage we had to go private). We spent £10k and have an amazing 1 year old DS. I don't think IVF should be funded at all. Having children is not a right. I'm a doctor and I see first hand the dire straights that the NHS is in currently. We really can't afford luxuries such as IVF.

Well it has already been pointed out on this thread that it is the case in France and in Italy allegreto
Both countries, you can get free IVF..... and more than one too.

It is covered in both Italy and France, not sure where else

We should address health tourism...

Checking that patients for eligible for treatment involves admin time and therefore costs money itself. My own family are resident tax payers and eligible for NHS treatment, BTW, but, since we have foreign names and my DC were born abroad, hospitals have checked our eligibility for treatment on a number of occasions.

The easiest and maybe cheapest option would be for patients to present an identity card before getting treatment, but the UK public has been resistant to identity cards.

And health tourism is a tiny fraction of the NHS budget. This is an excuse made for chronic underfunding. Immigrants also get blamed, but in addition to visa costs those on visas are also asked to pay an NHS surcharge as well as standard taxation.

I can see why this wouldn't be a spending priority. I think we need to be putting far more into mental health, for instance. But there is plenty of money in the UK. We could afford better mental health care and better IVF provision if we choose to spend more money on the NHS instead of cutting funding as demand from an aging population is increasing.

RedAndYellowStripe - I know! I posted about Italy. The poster I quoted was saying that most European countries only offer ONE round. I don't think this is true.

It has made me really sad. DP are facing up to the fact that we may need IVF but I don't think we can afford it. By the time we've saved up it will be too late. To make matters worse, my job just adds salt to the wound.

I get that the NHS needs to save money and that having children is a choice and not a right. There are however plenty of people receiving treatment for choices they have made.

In which countries? I don't know any where that is the case.

I have lived in 3 European countries. In one IVF was not covered at all. In the other two, if you have a high tier of health insurance you got one round of IVF paid for. I have family in a fourth European country. IVF is not covered there. They travel to Greece for reasonably priced private treatment.

It would help if you named the countries!

So sad. We paid for all of ours but I had a colleague who couldn't afford it at the time. Basically our pay packets decided who could be parents.

Meanwhile people eat themselves into obesity,do zero exercise,smoke,drink to excess and rock up to A&E/ their GP for grazes and sniffles. Wrong,wrong,wrong.

In any case, my point was that taxation is higher in many European countries to pay for better services. Rates of 55% or so are not just for the super high earners but for more modest earners too.

Healthcare in the uk isn't free. We are all paying for it through our taxes. Like it is in most countries (bar the US where everything has to be private insurance...)

Actually, healthcare in Germany is paid for by insurance - everyone has to pay for some kind of it, so it is similar to taxes, but it is possible for rich people to opt out of the system and get private insurance, which means they do not contribute to the healthcare for people who have much less money. (They also get preferential treatment everywhere because doctors earn more money by treating people with private insurance.)

The NHS system sounds quite sensible to me, higher taxes for people who can afford to pay more would likely solve the financial problems.

... of course, the problem of health tourism could be solved by neighbouring countries adopting a similar model, which is unlikely to happen.

I don't know what the birthrate in the UK is, but in Germany, it might actually be financially sensible to finance IVF - the babies of today pay taxes tomorrow.

katron the article I read said the area stopping IVF, are doing so because they have to save money. SO the IVF service will be cut and the money will not be going elsewhere.

The money saved by cutting IVF does not 'go back into the NHS'.

Commissioning bodies are required to make savings every year. As in reduce how much money they spend. If a local body cuts IVF it is a cut, not a transfer of funds.

It does of course mean that there isn't a cut, or as big a cut, in another service.

IVF isn't overall a 'big ticket' item and does not account for a huge amount of money, but it's the sort of treatment that can be considered for cutting as, basically, it's not treating a life-threatening disease. This is why prescriptions for gluten-free food are going, area by area (mind you, nobody should get pizza and cake on the NHS). This is why some areas no longer prescribe any OTC anti-histamines. To save money. Together these items add up to maybe enough to meet the government-imposed targets for savings.

But of course the crisis is now so bad that even cancer operations have been cancelled in the last month due to pressures on beds. This is happening across the country.

We need our national politicians to sit around a table and have an adult conversation about how much we should spend on health and social care, and what people can expect from these services. If we are going to strip back the NHS to a basics service, this should be by a decision and consent not death by a thousand cuts which is what is happening at the moment.

We can't get things to actually treat illness anymore because we can buy ourselves, despite the fact it's prohibitively expensive (think allergy infant milk, eczema treatment). Even the things you need a prescription for you have to fight for.

Unfortunately infertility isn't an illness which needs treatment as such. The NHS is on its knees, of course anything that isn't 'necessary' needs to go. The inconsistency was also highly unfair, and if, for example I was infertile, I would have got zero help as DP has two children who I don't see.

I do feel desperately sorry for people who struggle to conceive, but I don't think that's the NHSs responsibility. It is available to buy.

The thing is that fertility treatment costs the NHS an absolute drop in the ocean of the overall budget.

From what I can find, IVF costs to the NHS are around £400 million per year out of a budget of £116 billion (2015/16 figure).

My maths ain't great but that's less than 1% of the total. Would stopping it really make that much difference?

I'll hold my hands up, I had NHS fertility treatment on the NHS for my 2 children (not IVF) and I strongly believe that it should be funded. Not indefinitely, but certainly a minimum of 2-3 rounds per couple.

Having children may not be a "right" but the mental effects of infertility and the stress of trying and failing to get pregnant are not to be underestimated.

And this wouldn't be necessary if the NHS got the money promised by the Leave campaign.

The "leave campaign" was not an official government diktat, it was a lobby group. They had no mandate to promise anything.