to think NHS IVF rules are unfair?

[kathkim]

So I have adenomyosis and endometriosis. It's looking increasingly likely I will need IVF. Why can't I get it on the NHS just because my partner has a child with someone else? It's me who needs the help. How much would it cost privately?

Considering that even a young, fertile couple has just a 15-20 per cent chance of conceiving naturally in any one month, the statistics for IVF aren't bad at all.

From the HFEA website:

In 2010 (the year for which the most recent data is available) women having in vitro fertilisation (IVF) using fresh embryos created with their own fresh eggs, the percentage of cycles started that resulted in a live birth (national averages) was:

32.2% for women aged under 35
27.7% for women aged between 35–37 
20.8% for women aged between 38–39
13.6% for women aged between 40–42
5.0% for women aged between 43–44
1.9% for women aged 45 and over

IVF success rates are often given as a percentage of live births "per cycle" so one round of IVF (whether it's a first or subsequent try). But if you count the cumulative success rates when a couple has, say, three cycles of IVF, the numbers are significantly higher.

epi at the risk of going off topic, those stats are all but meaningless as they lump all infertile couples in together, irrespective of diagnosis (or indeed lack thereof)

For couples with a purely mechanical issue of sperm not meeting egg (e.g. Sperm motility issues or blocked tubes), the odds of success per cycle are approx 60%

For couples with unexplained infertility, or uterine lining issues the odds of success are a lot lower than those you have quoted.

I repeat, infertility is a symptom that can be caused by many, many different problems. It's really ignorant to just label a whole class of people as 'infertile' and somehow believe they are all exactly the same.

Op I'm sorry you're experiencing this with the NHS. We had been ttc number 2 and the doctors discussed ivf with us. They were fine with me having an existing child (in Scotland) but not fine with the fact my oh is her biological father. If I had another partner we'd have been offered ivf on the NHS. Luckily (and totally unexpectedly I fell pregnant naturally).

It's such a lottery in the U.K.

I'd like to echo Sunnyshores. We were referred to the local NHS ACU, but understood from the start it'd probably be self-funding (OH's existing offspring*' and me being nearly 40). OH's initial reaction was, "At least the money goes to a good cause," and in our naivety we thought we'd be getting good treatment at a decent price.

Well, firstly, while the stats weren't as stark as Sunnyshores (and this was 3.5 yrs ago not 10), they weren't great: live birth rates across all ages not much better than some of the private clinics' for 40+.
Secondly, the whole process was poorly explained for a newbie, and getting started seemed to depend on "When your period starts, ring us and we'll see if we can find you an appointment" . The nurse who was doing the ultrasound saw I had fibroids, said it was beyond her scope and I would need an appt for a scan with a doctor...for which the wait was 10 weeks. Cue dr immediately sending me his private price listwith NHS contact details and prices if anything slightly higher than a private clinicwith of course no waiting time if I saw him on this basis. I was left with the impression of the desperate clientele as a captive income sideline for certain staff...
Thirdly, self-funding wasn't really that much cheaper than going 'properly' private, certainly if one took it that little add-ons would be necessary as per above whenever there was some kind of hold-up.

Anyway, I got my fibroids sorted and went to a couple of private clinics. Even from my brief acquaintance with the NHS ACU, the difference was notable: for a start, the people doing the scans were either sonographers or doctors. Treatments were also tailored. I met one 40+ woman at a clinic that specialises in such, who'd come from a NHS centre where everyone got the same dose of stimulation--regardless of age or ovarian reserve markers. Also horror stories of "This ACU does egg collection on days X and Y except public holidays, your eggs are either at the right stage or they aren't".

This isn't to negate the NHS provision in all circssome infertility cases are relatively easy to 'fix'but for others you really should look the 'gift horse' in the mouth.

*Yes, I too was for a while faced with that perverse incentive to present as a single woman. What made the 'existing child' rule particularly laughable in our case was that OH's DD was only 4 yrs younger than me, and had a DC of her own...

shovetheholly increasing tax rates for the top 10% would only mean the top earners will move their businesses out of the UK or move to work abroad. Then we would lose out on their contributions. The top 10% pay around 50% of all tax contributions so without them we would struggle. There is an argument for cutting tax rates as it would encourage more businesses and industry, and therefore more jobs, to be set up in the UK.

The chance of success may be low with IVF, but the chance is still there. If someone had cancer I would think they should still be offered treatment even if the chance survival was low.

They have to draw the line somewhere. At the end of the day you have a child in your life you can parent, the money should rightly be available to those couples that don't.

Darla21 is correct. For a small example, I already pay nearly £5,000 a month in tax. As a result of which I work cripplingly long hours and miss out on a lot with my DC. Deincentivise that much more and why on earth would I do it, or why would I do it here? All my friends in similar roles say the same thing.

As for the super rich, why would they stay when they could relocate much more easily than everyone else? And if you make it too unattractive for businesses to be here, they won't.

Morally speaking of course people should pay their share. But the super rich and a lot of corporations are already carrying the rest of us on what they do contribute. It's just not as simple as "tax the rich" sadly.

The NHS only has limited funds because the government is limiting the amount they will give it. This is a cynical attempt to privatise our health care system. I for one would be happy to pay more tax if I knew it went to the NHS.

Sorry posted too soon. Wanted to send you a hug OP. It's not easy. We were very lucky. Our NHS IVF worked first time. First time I've ever really needed the NHS and it's been the best thing that's ever happened in my life. I'm grateful every day and i'd love for other people to have the same opportunity.

darla - I'm mates with one of the world's leading researchers on the alpha wealthy, and he (and his work) says that the models suggest it's a ton of bullshit that wealthy people will simply relocate elsewhere in the event of tax rises. There's a tranche of capital that is highly mobile already (all those empty, posh houses in London) and that might get lost in the event of something like a mansion tax - but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Most wealthy people, he says, live in places like London because they actually enjoy it. On top of that, there must be things we could do with passports and citizenship that would make the wealthy think twice about taking up residency elsewhere for tax reasons??

I don't buy the 'disincentivising' work argument either. It's odd to me how those in well-paid jobs always need carrots and rewards to work, whereas those in more ordinarily-salaried positions always need sticks and threats. Particularly when you look at other societies - Denmark for instance - where the inequality between the highest and lowest paid has been kept in some kind of check.

(And, for the record, we are a household that is not on the basic rate of tax, so before someone accuses me of some kind of politics of envy, this would affect our income too).

I was diagnosed with a serious B12 deficiency. I'd had it for some years before the symptoms started to show, add up, and get identified. I had suffered severe insomnia, bowel problems, recurrent illnesses and, most alarmingly, memory problems. Long term lack of B12 can cause dementia. As I was so low for some years, I probably have nerve damage and my memory is not as sharp as it once was (and it was very sharp).

The only treatment the NHS in my area will fund is an injection every three months.This makes me feel better for about a month and then I am back where I was. Feeling like shit every day. People could even see the difference in "injection month", "second month" and "third month". If I lived in Europe, I could have an injection every month and feel great. The cost of the injection is 50p. So, to make me feel fit, healthy and well, so I can function relatively normally, prevent my memory deteriorating further and potentially early dementia (I am 40) it would cost the NHS £6 per year. Assuming I live for another 30 years, £180.

That seems ridiculously cheap to me, to enable me to lead a healthy life. But they won't fund it. However, it would fund IVF if I wanted a baby.

Fortunately, I have discovered I can go privately and have injections when I NEED them. Not WANT, NEED. It costs more than 50p per time though.

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's right that people can get IVF costing what it does on the NHS when I can't get £6 worth of injections per year which transform my daily life. Clearly, we can't afford to fund everything. If IVF is available, it should be the same rules for all (1 treatment per woman wherever you live).

Darla21 is correct. For a small example, I already pay nearly £5,000 a month in tax

How much do you earn of you pay £5k a month??

Shatners, that's awful yet they waste so much in other areas like ivf, free medicines that cost little to buy over the counter etc. They need to get priorities in order and stop wasting in areas that we can do without.

*Today 09:08 ShiroiKoibito

Darla21 is correct. For a small example, I already pay nearly £5,000 a month in tax

How much do you earn of you pay £5k a month??

About £18000 I think, a bit less possibly

Not as much as the actuaries and bankers that I know, or some barristers or the partners at big city firms. All of whom would disagree with the model that shovetheholly mentions, albeit they're not the super rich, and I think perhaps they are more what her model refers to?

Anyway, that's not the point here. The point is that just taxing people more won't work. Lots of things need to change for the way funds are applied to be right and fair, and the current system isn't always either of those IMO.

shatners I'm really sorry to hear you're going through that, but I think you're mistaken in your belief that you'd get your injections if the NHS stopped offering IVF. They're not refusing you a treatment so cheap on the basis of cost alone - they must think that more frequent injections would provide no additional benefit, or so little additional benefit to be worth it. I'm not saying that's correct; clearly, you know how you feel and that more frequent injections is an effective treatment for you. But I really don't think you're not getting them because your local NHS is £6 short this year.

Yes its unfair. But I don't think the NHS should be funding any IVF at all; the NHS is collapsing, and should be focusing funding on lifesaving procedures. The world is massively overpopulated; it is illogical to be state funding the creation of yet more people... (awaits flaming)

You can get IVF in Prague for about £1700.

Sorry if someone else has mentioned this, couldn't wade thru 10 pages to check!

I think if the NHS is going to fund IVF it needs to look at who the patient is. In his case, it is the OP who cannot have children naturally at the moment, so she should be entitled to help. The fact that her partner is fertile shouldn't come into it, as he isn't the 'patient'.

Witsender - but wouldn't that mean couples with female infertility could have IVF, but not male infertility? sorry if I have misunderstood you.

Margaret I'm sorry too, Margaret, but you're wrong. I've spoken to my GP about it. My GP is not able to sanction more than a three-monthly injection by the local NHS Trust. I've spoken to action groups for B12 deficiency (which, if you look into it, is actually becoming a very major issue) and know other people in other parts of the country who get an injection every month. My GP actually ENCOURAGED me to find the alternative source because they know I need it but can't authorise it.

So, it is JUST as much a postcode lottery as IVF.

My point is that it is fundamentally wrong to deny people medication that they need for a diagnosed condition that they will have for the rest of their life, that seriously impedes day-to-day living, that has potentially very serious implications for my future at a cost of £6 per year (and I pay my taxes as much as the next person) while they will fund IVF treatment at a cost of around £4-5,000 per time. Because if I get dementia, it's going to cost the country far more than the cost of injections, because as I have no family, it's all going to be down to the NHS to take care of me.

Sorry, it's just wrong to deny medication but allow IVF on the NHS.

Whoever is infertile gets treatment...But an infertile woman shouldn't be refused it because he other half has proven his fertility elsewhere.