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

I'm a lefty but I think this is fair dos. Unless we all pay more taxes - and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

It's all really sad, NHS cuts galore, breast cancer drugs being axed, I am lucky to have 2 naturally conceived children and being unable to have children must be heart breaking. How on earth can anyone decide what treatments should be included/excluded? My DH has a chronic health condition that relies on expensive drugs otherwise his risk of cancer or life changing surgery is ever closer. I worry his treatment will stop due to cost. I am also a hcp in the NHS and the reailty of the pressures are real and terrifying !! I don't know th answer but I fear certain things will be considered a luxury and axed. 😔😔

I think A&E / GP time wasters should be fined. Or they should start charging a small amount.

Also think the sugar tax should be huge and free non essential ops eg obesity related surgery should be stopped

Unless they raise taxes- and that's not going to start anytime soon.

I agree with the decision, having children is not a right. The nhs needs to put treatment for people that are already alive as a priority.

I am 99.999999r% sure that you do not have the whole story here. - I'm 100% sure I do!

the NHS does not make moral judgements...unlike some people. Whether people work or not is not a criteria upon which decisions about their treatment are made. - My point being she has had two lots of different cosmetic surgeries on the NHS, a system she has never paid in to. Cosmetic surgeries for 'problems' that weren't even problems and everyone who knows her knows this. She openly laughs at the system and what she takes out of it, so yes, I fucking well will judge. It's disgusting that people like her treat it all as a big fucking joke when some people are being denied cancer treatments!

I think we all need to make a concerted effort to stop abusing the wonder that the NHS is, and try our utmost to save it with making educated choices about attendances and treatments. I know a few people that have had ridiculous cosmetic procedures on the NHS due the "mental anguish" it was causing them despite them being completely able to afford it themselves, and it's the mentality of this we need to address. I personally struggle to see how people claim they can't afford IVF treatment - so how can they afford to bring a child up? And the success rates are so low, it doesn't make financial sense. Having said that, infertility isn't something I've experienced so I can't imagine how it feels to be desperate for any hope no matter how low the chances of success are. There are no winners in this situation.

The other issue that doesn't get discussed is that quite often NHS trusts are quick to turn to IVF when it might not be necessary.

For example Dr Robert Winston has often referenced that he has seen private patients who have had failed IVF on the NHS but on investigation they've only needed a minor procedure, such as removal of fibroids, to conceive naturally.

I have a lovely daughter, thanks to NHS IVF provision.
For one thing, IVF does not cost the NHS as much as it costs a private individual because they basically bulk buy, and negotiate a big discount. Although I went to a well known clinic, not all the 'frills' were available to the NHS patients. So for example, your first visit where you look around and have a chat with a consultant was a group session with about 70 couple packed into a lecture room.
Secondly, a lot of the costs involved are the initial tests. But the chances of conceiving after one cycle are low - that's why the limit used to be set at 3 free cycles as that statistically gives a reasonable chance of a baby. So to limit to one cycle is actually wasteful. Once you have spent money on the tests etc, you might as well give the thing a chance of success. So I would say either fund it for three cycles or don't fund it at all. It's like giving half a dose of antibiotics, it probably won't work, and you've spent half the total cost anyway.
Thirdly, somebody mentioned the Hospital series. Nobody could fail to be moved by that poor Nigerian lady and her premature triplets. The cost of treating her and her babies was enormous, and at least one of the little ones died anyway and she herself was very ill. This is why there is a 2 embryo limit per transfer in the UK. But, when people are paying for their own treatment it is very tempting to head off to India or Russia or somewhere where you can get excellent Ivf treatment for a fraction of the UK prices. And they will transfer as many embryos as you ask for. The NHS then picks up the tab for these complicated pregnancies ( those triplets were costing about £1k per day each to care for, for months), you could fund hundreds of IVF cycles for the price of one of these multiple pregnancies that go wrong.
I think that the proposals for limiting or cutting treatment to such an extent is a false economy, it won't save that much for these reasons.
Also, I think comparing this to cancer treatment and saying one is more important than the other isn't a valid argument. It's comparing apples and pears. There is no objective measure that says that having cancer is more worthy of being treated than having infertility. It depends on your perspective. Some people might argue that spending, say, £30k on treatment which will give a cancer patient 1 year of extra life is a poorer use of money than giving 3 couples the chance of a child.

I find this really sad my little boy is a result of IVF and we had one funded cycle. It's also a shame that these sorts of threads always dissolve into a 'IVF vs. Cancer treatment' debate or the 'just adopt' brigade come in. We had undiagnosed infertility and it took 6 years before we were eligible for treatment, there is a process you have to follow and during that time I was diagnosed with depression, lost a job due to this and suffered a mental break down. Do I think children are a right? No. Do I think infertility should be a medical condition which is treated? Yes. Maybe not free but subsidised at least. Or there should be a crack down on how much private treatment centres charge vs the actual costs of an IVF cycle. Our consultant was fantastic and told us the cost to the NHS was a fraction of what patients were charged.

A close friend of mine is facing IVF after needing to have her eggs frozen due to chemotherapy when younger.

The NHS is in crisis, cuts need to happen. Maybe IVF needs to be one of these cuts, but in my opinion so does the amount of money spent treating drunks, A&E time wasters, drug addicts etc...

so how can they afford to bring a child up?

Hyacinth this argument doesn't wash at all. Under normal circumstances, when would you be asked to pay £18,000 all in one go while bringing up a child? The NHS can access better deals than private patients can, so it doesn't cost £6000 a pop like it often costs private patients.

I had a diagnosis of the conditions that probably caused my infertility. Those conditions could have been treated but I am almost certain it would have cost more than a couple of rounds of IVF. The conditions on their own were / are not completely debilitating but did/ do have an impact on my quality of life. Because IVF bypassed the the problems and allowed me to achieve a pregnancy the treatment of the conditions was put to one side. I paid privately for my IVF treatment because I could and it got me there quicker. I do wonder about the cost to the NHS trusts who don't offer much in the way of IVF treatment - if I had been unable to afford private and denied NHS treatment then I would have absolutely pushed to have the diseases / conditions / illnesses treated that were the barriers to conception

I personally struggle to see how people claim they can't afford IVF treatment - so how can they afford to bring a child up?

When you fall pregnant naturally the midwife doesn't ask for a £5000 - £10,000 cheque during your booking in appointment. I am one of those who probably couldn't afford private treatment as I didn't have that much disposable cash in the bank. Can I afford to feed, dress and look after my children on our monthly income? Yep

My heart says that IVF should be available but my head feels we cannot justify it whilst other services are being slashed to the bone. I'm flip flopping again, having just written that. I don't know what the answer is. :( I'd happily pay more tax but only if I knew it was actually going to be used for public services, rather than being pissed up the wall.

Every cut that is mentioned someone says, " but it's a drop in the ocean", but surely all these drops put together will add up

I have a son conceived by private ivf. We used an egg donor due to me having a condition that I might have passed on. The day I was referred I turned 36. The age limit where I live is 35. I understand the costs issues involved but what I don't get is why NICE routinely recommends treatments that are then denied by trusts as they can't afford them. The NHS is broken x

I agree with Wayfaring.

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

Oh dear, you didn't believe that did you..?

I also feel for the people this will affect.

What makes me angry is the time wasters. So many people see the NHS as a right that they have no respect for it or its services. And this partly contributes to this. It's an utter disgrace.

It's hard to say that IVF is not essential. You could say that those that can't conceive naturally have a problem that is overcome by IVF. Same as those with a missing limb have this overcome with a prosthetic. Those who are deaf could have a cochlear implant. Someone who is disfigured in some way might get plastic surgery. None of these type of treatments are 'life saving' but they are quality of life enhancing.

Equally, we currently treat people who's actions have led to their illness. You could therefore argue we shouldn't treat anyone who has an illness or accident relating to a sport or hobby they partake in. We shouldn't treat people who have become ill on holiday, or because they chose to drive their car. Those are all lifestyle choices with risks attached.

I've had ivf which was funded by our local NHS and I am so happy that we were funded. Paying for it ourselves would not have bankrupted us but it probably would have destroyed our relationship, and not having it treatment at all would probably have broken my mental health.

A couple of points: funding is not through specialised services (which is national level commissioning) but through local NHS CCGs which is how we get the current postcode lottery.

Infertility may not be what many people think of as an illness in the sense of cancer or heart disease but it is often caused by a medical issue and also often has a real and serious impact on mental health and your ability to live a full life. It really can be bloody awful and people who have not struggled with it find it difficult to understand.

I agree that cancer treatment is more important. But - which cancer treatments? There are plenty that are very very expensive, far more so than a round of ivf, and with far less chance of success (where success doesn't even mean 'cure'). The entire NHS budget could probably be spent on that kind of treatment but that's really not the best way to use all that money. There has to be a balance.

I hate it when people talk about it as a tax payer funded luxury. Luxury is nice hotels, lovely food and swish cars. It's not sticking needles in your tummy for weeks, having many different people do very invasive and intimate procedures, followed by two weeks of total headfuck waiting to see if it works. It really feels very far from luxury.

Don't get me started on 'you could always adopt'

okay, well in that case it would be very interesting to know which area you live, that has had a policy in the last couple of years to fund breast enlargements for people with (matching sized) breasts that aren't very small? - Small town in Wales, not giving the exact location. Not sure how these things are processed but everyone knows each other so not sure if a GP she knows could have pushed it through? A lot of local people felt it was a complete pisstake given that the towns hospital has suffered greatly as a result of cuts with many ward closures - obviously not as a direct result of her breast implants though

If cuts need to happen then it's only right that things that are not life saving/fixing go first.

People hate the way it's worded but creating a new life when funds are needed to fix and save the life's of those already here are clearly bottom of the priority list.

Could you imagine sorry you cannot have that operation/your arm fixed/cancer treatment etc because we need to make sure people can have babies...

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

I know (and no, I didn't believe it) but lots of people did. Brexit is going to be very expensive for the country though (maybe this is short term - who knows?) and I expect lots of services will continue to be cut in the near future.