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

My pregnancy also cut my risk of ovarian cancer.

So IVF should be done on the NHS because it might lower your risk of getting cancer? That doesn't make any sense.

IVF is not saving the NHS money in the long run because pregnancy lowers the OC risk.

I think its inevitable to happen.

IVF is not available in my area and hasn't been for a while.

Its wrong.

However that article, in the OP is from a year ago. Which no one seems to have picked up on.

Its not exactly a 'new' story.

I think it's the right decision too. The NHS should focus on illness and helping people getting better.

IVF should be a private treatment like cosmetic surgery. Compared to raising a child the cost is a drop in the ocean so if people really want to become parents then they will find the means to fund it.

The cutting of IVF services to save money makes me so sad and angry. As others have said, this is a cut to reduce spending, not to reinvest anywhere, so no one is benefiting from this. It is easy to make it very emotive by making it a choice between IVF and cancer care or treating sick children, but in reality these are not the decisions to be made. There are many other areas that could also be looked at.

The UK spends much less as a percentage of GDP on healthcare than most of our European neighbours, and the rationing of services and the lower outcomes speak for themselves. The government are deliberately underfunding the NHS and privatisation to some degree will follow, I'm fairly sure.

As it has been pointed out, IVF doesn't come out of the central specialised services budget. Instead each individual CCG in the country is able to make their own decisions about the funding using their local budget. I would not be surprised if provision disappears in many areas in the next 9-12 months as a result of pressure to make savings. It will continue to be hugely varied and unfair too.

I find it hard to agree that treating infertility is somehow a lifestyle choice. If having a family is a 'want' rather than a 'need' then by the reasoning given above, mothers should be self-funding maternity care. What about treatment after a sporting injury - should you get free treatment if you've just been indulging your love of a dangerous hobby? Or for obesity related treatments? Personally I don't believe in rationing based on characteristics of the recipient and think clinical need should be the decider and that includes IVF.

This is another good example of people simply being too expensive to treat. The lady in question has been having treatment in Germany and it's looking good right now. The NHS told her that she wouldn't live to see Christmas. I was really moved by this because I found a lump after DD and was terrified; my news was better than hers.

Digressing slightly but my point is, at what point can you put a price on life? And who gets to make that decision?

www.gofundme.com/keepingkateanne

If someone has a gastric band and manages to lose weight it would cost less to treat them in the future. Also they may not be able to work if they are very obese, but with the band they might be able to work therefore saving money in that way too.

But by that logic alone owlina - if someone has a baby, that baby will one day grow up and get a job and pay tax!

Given the dire state of the NHS, I understand this IVF decision. It seems to be regarded as a right.

I live overseas with no publicly funded health service. My only pregnancy was high risk and incredibly expensive (my health insurance didn't cover it) we are talking a six figure number and it took me years and years to pay it off.

For this reason, we will only have one child. She is all we can afford. We can't turn to anyone to pay for a child for us. Harsh but true.

It is sad for the people affected. But the NHS simply can't cope with the demands made upon it. It's falling apart. Ann Widdicombe spoke a lot of sense on last week's question time. The NHS needs to be completely overhauled. And the postcode lottery is most unfair of all.

Unfortunately, it's an inevitable consequence of voting in a low taxation, pro privatisation, anti NHS government. If funded the NHS with the same proportion of GDP as the much-cited countries in Europe with higher levels of care, we could afford the same. The NHS may have inefficiencies, but every time it is compared internationally, it comes up as one of the most efficient systems around.

What I do wish we could do is sue private IVF clinics (home and abroad) for the enormous NICU costs of looking after the babies born prematurely because they have irresponsibly put back too many embryos, chasing highest number of pregnancies rather than highest number of live babies. If we could do that, we could probably afford to give more people the 1st couple of rounds of IVF...

As much as I can see those needing IVF won't see it as a luxury, looking at it from another angle my 6 month old was born with a life threatening disease, new treatment has been designed that is proven to help prolong the sufferers life amongst other benefits and this cannot be funded through the NHS due to 'costs', the huge amount of medication she takes on a daily basis also is not covered on the NHS once she is 18 although she needs it to survive. There are massive shortfalls in the NHS and cuts do need to be made somewhere, not everyone can be provided with everything.

Rainbows - IVF is nothing like paying privately for cosmetic surgery. Nothing like.

Apart from the fact you can't compare a child to a neater nose or bigger boobs without being pretty offensive, the main difference is that if I want bigger boobs, I can find a surgeon, give them a few grand, and walk away happy with my new tits. It's a straightforward transaction. If I pay for ivf I'm paying for the chance of a pregnancy. Certainly not a guaranteed outcome. Even if I go into it thinking, well I'll pay say £20k for three or four rounds (and that would be cheap for private treatment although the NHS pays less) it's still not a definite. And £20k is not a drop in the ocean.

Well yes cupofsick, if you read my previous post you'll see I'm not in favour of cutting IVF.

EmilyRoseanne I'm sorry your baby is unwell, I hope she gets the best care she needs x

I'm of the impression that some areas choose to fund IVF treatment because it was cheaper than NICU treatment citing cases of desperate people and unscrupulous procedures resulting in multiple births.
Work up, and simple IUI should be easily fit into NHS budgets. An age cap seems reasonable.

All these cuts in the NHS, social care, benefits are an ideological choice, they dont have to be done unless your running down the system until they fail then you sell them off

I hate to quote the daily fail but it was this article today that got me on Google and reading. So apologies if the article in my op was an older one. Here's the one from today:

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4212726/Controversial-new-fertility-treatment-plans-NHS.html

Out2pasture I have not seen that officially factored into decision making, I'd love to hear more if you can. It bloody ought to be considered. More and more people will go abroad for treatment as NHS funding becomes more restricted in England and yes this will result in more multiple births and probably more cases of OHSS.

And yes, what Just Another Poster said. Quite so.

Disclaimer: I haven't rtft....

It's very sad. But watching "the hospital" brings it home that the NHS has a chronic shortfall of funds and it needs to focus on illness and not luxurious extras.

And yet, parents of children who are conceived "naturally" give birth on the NHS every day without having to pay extra???

If I were organising this, the NHS would ensure GPs have suitable training so that couples having problems conceiving could access balanced and well-informed advice. Thy would be a lot more useful (and cheaper!) than grudgingly providing one cycle for those who jump through the many hoops, in certain postcodes when there's an r in the month.

Agree with everything @tigerdog said so eloquently.

Obesity related healthcare (drugs and intervention) costs: £16 billion
Alcohol related costs: £3.5 billion
Smoking related costs: £5 billion

Spend on fertility treatment, where sufferers have NO CHOICE in what happens to their bodies: £500m.

the terminology is called single embryo transfer policy and there is lots of scholarly articles about the reduced rate of morbidity and mortality.
i'm in Canada and the province of Quebec has done a trial of free IVF (only for those that live in that province) for a few years. the reason behind starting the program was to reduce the complications of mums and babes of multiples.
however the costs involved has led to the program being significantly changed.

@nastywoman - you're right, couples will go abroad where it's cheap and regulation is lax, have 2, 3 or 4 embryos replaced and the NHS will pick up the cost of premature multiples. And I'm so angry and bitter about the state of the funding for fertility, I will think fucking good on the desperado barrens for doing whatever it takes, because we live in a society full of fucking smugly happy sorts who can't be bothered to imagine what it would be like to be unhappily childless, so yes, their taxes can go on whatever additional care needs their shitty attitudes have caused.

Sorry owlina, I was agreeing with you/trying to back you up - didn't put it v well!

That Grauniad article is over a year old.