Medicare for IVF
I don’t have a problem with the Federal Government’s plan to limit Medicare support for IVF to three times a year (and three in total for women aged over 42).
We’ve known couples who received IVF treatment and they pretty much paid for everything themselves. The Medicare rebate has only become available since the safety net was introduced last year.
As I understand it, a couple will pay for the first treatment themselves, which puts them over the safety net threshold, and they’re then entitled to significant Medicare rebates for subsequent cycles.
No doubt it must be a difficult, even traumatic experience. Four times a year would probably be sufficient for most people.
These articles might be of interest:
Tags: health
Reader's comments
Leave a comment
Recent comments
- Kathryn: I have just started (literally the past couple of days) trying to pick up where my mother had started...
- malissa: but IS THERE ANYTHING else 2 use besides an umberella if your just goin for a walk
- Nev: I am a cyclist and have had my share of attacks this year…. the orange flag (from Woolies at $8) and the...
- johnny cage: Google finance has specific US UK CAN and CHINA sites we need an Australian one urgently.
- Sue: I understand. I have had a few awful smears in my comments from time to time. All of my older posts are...
The problem with the government’s proposal is that it is singling out one treatment and none of the reasons it has given justify why IVF alone should be affected by the changes.
Some IVF procedures (egg collection, embryo transfer, ultrasounds) have always attracted a Medicare rebate - patients haven’t received the money directly but the fee they are charged is the out-of-pocket expense. They fill in Medicare forms so that their clinic can receive the Medicare payment directly. Since the safety net has been introduced, patients have also received an amount back after the procedure depending how far over the safety net limit they have gone with all their out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare-funded health services (including non-IVF) that year.
The reasons given by the government for the change include:
* likely success rates. This doesn’t apply to any other procedure. They don’t limit the number of chemotherapy sessions one person can undertake because the chances of success are low. That decision is left to be made between the patient and the doctor, as it should be with IVF.
* nothing in life is free - even with the safety net IVF patients still face significant out-of-pocket expenses including for non-Medicare funded procedures (such as ICSI) and drugs they need to take, so it’s certainly far from free. All other procedures are funded to the same extent, so why change it for IVF?
* that infertile couples are to blame for not getting on with starting a family earlier. Other Medicare funded procedures are not limited because someone has “caused” their problem. Treatments to smokers who may have caused their illnesses are not limited nor is someone who plays footballs and ends up needing a knee reconstruction not able to receive Medicare funding for their operation, even though it could be argued that they should have realised that playing football carried some risk of injuring their knees. Why should infertile couples be singled out?
The decision to limit couples to three cycles a year and those over 42 to three in total is completely arbitrary. It ignores that each patient is different. The decisions about how infertility should be treated and how many cycles are needed should be made between doctor and patient just as it is for any other medical decision.
I suspect the reason IVF has been singled out is because Tony Abbott blundered in estimating the costs of the safety net scheme. Politically he was forced to show that he was cutting back in some way and although the IVF savings were not huge, he chose it because he is opposed to IVF on religious and ethical grounds.
i think we need some sort of age restriction on IVF treatment
it is getting absurd with old woman past menopause having children with IVF treatment and egg-doners
i think that if for some reason you cannot have children naturally and you try several times with IVF and fail, then perhaps there is some reason why your body wont reproduce
whether you believe its a god, mother nature or evolution
i dont mean to sound overly harsh, but with darwins theory of evolution, if everyone survives to have kids, whether they are strong and healthy or have something fundementally wrong with them
then that will weaken the gene-pool
ultimately this can lead to many things
increased birth defects, genetic disorders or lead to a relience on reproductive technology as our only ways of reproduction
i guess what i’m trying to say is:
if you are unsuitable to have kids, then dont
if you still want kids, adopt
thats my 10c….if someone disagrees i’d be interested to read their comment
Carlene, you rightly criticise the government for singling out IVF, but I’m not sure if you’re saying the decision re IVF is right or wrong? And you confirm that IVF has attracted higher Medicare support since the safety net was introduced.
I think that’s the issue here, and in defence of the government I think it’s a good enough reason to cap Medicare support for IVF.
Yes, they should go further if we’re to have a sustainable health system. I read in The Age a couple of weeks ago where someone said if they’re fair dinkum about saving money they should limit x-rays and blood tests.
Andrew, some will say your views are a little harsh, but I sort of agree with what you’re saying. My wife and I have experienced several miscarriages. They’re difficult emotionally, but it’s nature’s way of stopping an unviable pregnancy from going full term.
If a couple can’t conceive through IVF after a certain number of tries I think it’s reasonable that the government shouldn’t support them. If they want to pay for it themselves, that’s fair enough.
Michael is right. It’s reasonable for the government to put a limit up to a certain no. of tries and beyond that will be the couples discretion and responsibility to shoulder the cost if they still want to try. In my case, I’m willing to shoulder all the cost for an IVF. All I ever wanted is to have a child but i have not been so lucky with relationships. I’m looking for a perfect IVF mum who will conceive my child using IVF treatment method. I’m hoping to find someone who desires to have a child and would be interested in pregnancy via IVF. My personal site is: http://www.iwanttobeadad.com
My son was born in July 2007 through IVF.
I don’t understand why this even needs to be discussed.
I didn’t choose to be infertile.I didn’t choose for it to be so damned hard to conceive him and I certainly didn’t choose to spend in excess of $30,000 over 5 years to get my son.
We have all these supports in place for drug addicts.Do we limit the amount of methodone they are allowed a year???
Every women should be given the opportunity to have a child if that is her wish.
Sadly a lot of the time how much money a couple has determines whether they have a child or not..
I do not know much about this treatment (I shoot loaded bullets) but we should just be glad that at least the government helps with a few treatments a year.
and yes it is quite a traumatic time for the people involved…..
Jermayn Parker’s last blog post..Origins of Australian Rules Football