To not disagree that IVF should be further restricted to save money

[Banana8080]

NHS England is considering reducing IVF offer guidelines, some areas offer 3 cycles (the current recommendation), while others offer none.

Current age limit is 40 years, strict BMI and trying to conceive for at least two years.

While infertility can be devastating, I myself have just had treatment (private) followed by a mc, it’s not critical/life saving. I’m sad but I left it late (37) even though I knew the risks.

Am I being unreasonable to say it’s ok for NHS to review guidelines, maybe reduce upper age to 35, one cycle etc. And this money goes to critical care - cancer, more nurses etc etc

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/29/ivf-cycles-restricted-england-nhs-advisers-ignored

Yes ! IVF is a drop in the pool
Efficient spending on just one issue
Would save more

Keep it as it is I say

I went through fertility treatment not ivf . I had been in mh services for years. My baby probably saved the nhs a lot of money

The reality is the nhs is picking up costs from all the social under funding. There are many ways to cut money without losing ivf

Why not cut services to people who could influence their own situation instead?
Many issues are cause by lifestyle choices and get funded but you would cut an already difficult to access service that people need to use through no fault of their own?

I live in a county where three rounds of ivf is offered on nhs.. this is the recommended number of rounds by guidelines I believe. However the neighbouring county only offers one round. We accepted that should three rounds not work we would have to pay.. and indeed if no rounds had been offered we would have put the money aside to make it happen. I think if all trusts offered the same, even if it’s just one round, that would be fairer

I had private IVF and have to admit I would’ve felt a bit uneasy having it on the NHS. I don’t really think that’s what the NHS is there for. It’s very underfunded, I don’t think its scant resources should be used to fund treatment that isn’t really a medical necessity.

I think the main problem is that it's not consistent
How can it be fair to have 3 goes in one area and none in another?

Personally I (realising I am hugely lucky in having dc without needing ivf) wonder if we should be making ivf available to all?

I realise that to many people having a child is the most important thing in the world and don't want to diminish this in any way

@Hengine so do we stop offering most cancer treatments and the biggest risk for most cancers is lifestyle choice?

No, I don’t agree they should cut IVF. I’ve never had it, have two children so no personal views.

I do however know of at least two people who had their stomachs stapled free on the NHS for pure vanity. Both fairly overweight but self inflicted, and at least one could afford to pay them selves. I also personally know someone who had her boobs done on the NHS. Went to the go and feigned depression for being flat chested.

Theseare the things that should be cut, unless it can be 100% proved they are medically needed. It’s outrageous.

No! That’s not what I meant, sorry if it sounded like that. I was trying to make the point that I think that both should be funded.

Imo one round on the NHS would be fair and sufficient. If it fails you pay for another go yourself. There are a number of other areas where money could be saved too - unnecessary prescriptions for stuff people should be paying for themselves is a big one.

Imo one round on the NHS would be fair and sufficient

That doesn’t fit with what clinical guidelines recommend. It should be three cycles everywhere, or at least two. They use information from a failed first cycle to make the second more likely to succeed.

I think the NHS needs a huge overhaul in terms of structure and management. IVF is probably a tiny drop in the bucket. And as a previous poster said, the first cycle is almost a test run in terms of seeing how you respond to drugs.

I had my ivf conceived baby at 37. My age had no bearing on our infertility and we had been ttc since I was 31 so didn't leave it late.

-Imo one round on the NHS would be fair and sufficient Sufficient for what? Not clinical efficacy - there’s an evidence based reason why they indicate 3 cycles.

Frankly I’m lucky that I’ve been able to afford the additional cycles after my one funded one failed miserably. If I had to stop at one then I can assure you I’d be costing the NHS a lot more in mental health support right now.

So , slight detour (I work for the NHS, long term service provider)

What WOULD you cut back on to save money?

All these 'little drops in the ocean' add up to a bloody big lake !

If I’ve read the news reports correctly, this is one of a list of treatments being considered for reductions in provision. Boob reductions are another. I’m childless through choice but understand the emotional turmoil some people go through as a result of infertility, but I agree with pp’s who say it ought to be offered consistently across the country to avoid the current postcode lottery described above. Consistent age limits, one round per couple etc would at least be fair.

Imo one round on the NHS would be fair and sufficient. If it fails you pay for another go yourself.

Well, that's because you're ignorant about the process. NICE recommended three in the first place for a reason. It's a terrific waste of resources to fund one round and then not carry on to have the best chance of actual success; it's like giving half a course of any other treatment, like physiotherapy or antibiotics. It's easier to justify not providing at all than doing it in such a haphazard way.

Yes I wondered what the bus can cut back on? I certainly hope not staffing etc

NHS not bus

I would look to addressing the general financial inefficiency within NHS systems first before cutting back on services. I’ve worked with NHS partners and it’s frankly alarming how much money is spent on our dated systems, on paying locums, on convoluted and inefficient admin processes.

They are cutting back on a huge range of what are considered to be largely ineefective treatments.

List here That article doesn’t mention IVF, though.

The NHS needs to cut back on the unecessary layers of management and bureaucracy. Not IVF.
I work with the NHS setting up clinical trials and they do their best to make you speak to 20 different people about nothing before you can get things approved.

I would stop the postcode lottery on ivf if it’s going to be offered at all. I had (private) ivf because I was ineligible in my area, yet if I’d moved house I’d have had three nhs funded rounds. I was told quite cheerfully by a nurse as she was jamming the wand in me for a scan that I have no right to have a child.

If they out and out stop ivf on the nhs, I do think that there should be tax breaks for those that need to have it - I honestly don’t think that anyone chooses to have ivf if they can conceive naturally, it’s a horrible thing to go through. Or alternatively, perhaps NHS ivf at cost, or with a small profit might be an idea?

I just don’t think it’s right to punish those that struggle to conceive.

Oh, and I was 26 when I first started TTC, and 31 when I got my BFP and had my babies 😃