Q.
We recently had PGD performed, and it revealed that two abnormal embryos were developing beautifully and two genetically normal embryos had ceased developing. Why would the genetically normal embryos not develop in comparison to the genetically abnormal embryos? Would this be due to egg quality? Would the same results be expected for a future PGD procedure? Is it unlikely that a six-cell embryo that had not developed in two days would result in a pregnancy?

A.
I don’t have all the information needed to give you a complete answer but I’m going to assume that you are a typical IVF patient (in your late 30’s) and were doing PGD to eliminate embryos with chromosomal abnormalities or aneuploidy. During your IVF cycle the eggs that were harvested from your ovaries were inseminated and those that fertilized and continued to develop were analyzed genetically. Depending on your (maternal) age, somewhere around 50% of your eggs would have been genetically abnormal. The genetically abnormal embryos look and behave in the same way as normal embryos.

Most genetic abnormalities cause an embryo to fail at the time of implantation (5 or 6 days old) or cause a pregnancy to fail early (miscarriage). When we look at embryos under the microscope in the days leading up to transfer, there is no way of knowing which are genetically normal or abnormal. Both types of embryos grow and develop similarly. In fact, some embryos that we know are abnormal (e.g. resulting from an egg that is fertilized by 2 sperm) often develop faster and look more beautiful than normally fertilized embryos.

The egg is a very large cell and when it is released from the ovary it has already been programmed to develop for 3 or more days after fertilization. Mom pre-loads her eggs with the necessary information for this early development. In most cells, including sperm, there are internal checks to make sure that the cell is functioning normally and that it is genetically normal. Cells that are abnormal, commit suicide in a process that we call apoptosis. Eggs however, seem to have a very poor internal surveillance mechanism, and even those that are grossly abnormal (e.g. with a whole extra chromosome) can fertilize and develop even to the point of giving you a live child. Down syndrome is the classic example, although at least 75% of embryos affected with this condition miscarry early in pregnancy.

So, eggs are endowed at ovulation with the necessary information to keep them going and looking normal for days, regardless of their genetic constitution. There is no relationship between their genetic status and how beautiful they look in our petri dish. If there were, we wouldn’t need to do PGD. We can keep embryos alive in the laboratory for 5 or 6 days and some of the abnormal embryos might stop developing by that time. However, our experience with PGD over the years tells us that about 50% of the genetically abnormal embryos will still look beautiful on their 5th day of life.

The pattern of development that we see with human embryos, regardless of their genetic status, is extremely variable. As you have witnessed first hand, normal embryos often arrest for reasons that we don’t always understand. This is true, regardless of whether the embryos are growing inside of you or in our lab, and this leads to a very inefficient process of reproduction in human females because she only ovulates one egg per month. We do know that the younger a woman is, the better the chance that the embryo will continue to grow. Embryos are more likely to fail in older women. In very young women, over 50% of embryos will implant in the uterus, but in women over age 40 less than 10% will implant. Although we can’t fully explain this phenomenon, a major contributing factor is egg age. Since women have all the eggs they will ever have when they are born, a 40-year-old woman is trying to get pregnant with a 40-year-old egg. And 40-year-old eggs just don’t perform as well as younger eggs.

Are PGD results consistent from one cycle to the next? The PGD technicians tell me that they get similar results for a patient 2 out of every 3 times.

Any embryo that has not developed in 2 days will not get you pregnant. If an embryo is to be ready for implantation, it must be alive and increasing its cell number every day. We expect a full round of cell division (e.g. from 4 to 8 cells) every 16 hours. Further, an embryo transferred to your uterus on day 4 or day 5, following your PGD analysis, should have enough cells to begin forming a placenta. It sounds like your embryo had arrested (i.e. it was dead).

Human reproduction is a very complex undertaking, and often patients feel like they’re left with more questions than answers after their fertility treatment. Don’t be afraid to ask your questions, no matter how simple or complicated they might be. Chances are, we’ve encountered your situation before. - Joe Conaghan, PhD, HCLD

Ovarian reserve is an expression of the number and quality of eggs available for conception. As a parameter for predicting pregnancy, ovarian reserve testing is often part of a fertility evaluation. Such testing requires specific measurement, and clinical judgment to interpret the results.

Egg numbers are at a maximum before birth, at around 20 weeks gestation. After birth, there is a progressive decline in the number of eggs from roughly one million at birth to 300,000 at puberty. Through the reproductive years the remaining eggs are lost, with the rate accelerating around the mid-30s, resulting in few eggs left at menopause, around age 50-52. The number of eggs available for reproduction at a certain age is the ovarian reserve, which is the target of the diagnostic tests described here.

Age is the most accurate predictor of egg health, but within age groups, there is considerable variation in the number of eggs remaining for reproduction. Age alone as a predictor of ovarian reserve is not sufficient, since, for individuals, fertility may be better or worse than the average for that age. Extreme examples of this variability include the teenager in menopause and the 59 year-old that delivered a natural pregnancy in 1997. This variability in pregnancy rates within an age group is present in all reproductive age groups.

To predict an individual woman’s fertility rate, in addition to her age, both clinical and laboratory methods are available to evaluate ovarian reserve. The best tests are direct measures of the ovary, such as the Antral Follicle Count (AFC) and Anti-mullerian Hormone (AMH) level; indirect measures, such as clinical history and levels of pituitary hormones, are common tools for prediction of ovarian reserve.

The simplest method of predicting fertility rates is clinical history, of both the individual and her closely related family. The number of months spent attempting to conceive predicts fertility. A couple that has been trying for some time will naturally have a lower fertility rate than a woman that has not had unprotected intercourse. Response to ovarian stimulation can also be used as a marker, as it is fairly consistent between cycles. Family history, i.e., the fertility of the woman’s mother or sisters reflected in age at menopause and age at conception are useful predictors. Such factors from clinical history can help define the risk of a problem with ovarian reserve.

Ultrasound is a useful tool for predicting ovarian reserve, as in measuring the Antral Follicle Count (AFC). Antral follicles are the smaller follicles, visible on ultrasound, between 2 and 10 mm, that are lost as a woman ages. In younger women, the AFC is 10-20, declining by 5% per year through age 37, and then accelerating to a loss of 10% per year thereafter. Women show a fairly consistent AFC loss rate of one follicle every two years.

AFC predicts the response to ovarian stimulation at least as well as blood tests, but its ability to predict pregnancy outcomes is limited, particularly when low. A woman with a higher AFC will show a better response to fertility drug treatments. A high AFC seems to predict pregnancy rates, but data remains limited, as there are no prospective studies published. A low AFC seems to be a less accurate predictor of ovarian reserve, particularly in older age groups. AFC may help predict outcomes, but should not be used to exclude patients from treatment.

Anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) is a blood test that directly measures ovarian reserve. Produced directly by early stage ovarian follicles, high levels (over 1.0) are favorable, while low levels (less than 1.0) indicate decreased ovarian reserve. AMH may be the best measure of the menopausal transition and ovarian age. It may also be useful in predicting ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, the effects of chemotherapy, and in determining the treatment of PCOS.

AMH seems a superior predictor of ovarian response compared to other markers, including age, and day 3 FSH and estradiol. It offers similar predictive value compared to AFC. AMH can be drawn at any time in the menstrual cycle, and is not affected by hormonal therapy, including oral contraceptives.

AMH still requires further study. The range of normal variation is still being determined, and the true predictive value of the test requires a great deal more analysis. The specific range of reliability and predictive value by age is yet to be established.

Cycle day three FSH and estradiol, and, to a lesser extent, the clomiphene challenge test, remain viable tests for estimating ovarian reserve. These tests are established as predictors of response to ovarian stimulation. Prediction of pregnancy rates is more difficult. Recent studies concentrating on the predictive value of these tests have shown that they cannot be used to determine which patients cannot conceive, but are useful for screening and counseling.

All in all, these tests are only rough predictors of ovarian reserve. They are moderately good predictors of ovarian response to stimulation, and relatively poor predictors of pregnancy outcome. In a particular patient, the tests can be used to counsel about potential response to ovulation induction, but it remains difficult to predict pregnancy outcome based on the test results.

The ultimate test of ovarian reserve is response to treatment and whether a pregnancy results from that treatment. Stay tuned as we evaluate further research to establish the validity of ovarian reserve testing methods.

— Philip Chenette, M.D.

For patient(s) who need to use an egg donor to create or expand their family, medical scrutiny is performed on the chosen egg donor before she can proceed with the IVF cycle.

The medical screening of egg donors is an important process. Here at the PFC Egg Donor Agency, we proceed with an extensive screening process PRIOR to allowing the egg donor to become eligible for choosing by the intended parent(s). This extensive screening is performed to help determine and identify any medical factors which may disqualify the donor, or to identify information which may require additional testing prior to determining donor eligibility. At PFC, our philosophy is that we want to identify any issues prior to intended parents choosing the donor, so that the risk of identifying medical issues with the donor after the start of the IVF cycle is minimized, and the risk of canceling the cycle is much reduced.

Medical screening for the donor includes an extensive review of her personal and family medical history, physical exam and pelvic ultrasound, psychological evaluation (in-person visit with our MFT Peggy Orlin),

standardized personality assessment (PAI), and blood testing including ethnic appropriate genetic testing.

The PFC Egg Donor Agency complies with current recommendations by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), and the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG). The donor identifies her ethnic background, and based on this information, appropriate testing is performed (see article by Lauri Black, Genetic Counselor, outlining current recommendations). This testing is done and results reviewed prior to approving the egg donor as eligible to be in the donor database. If the donor is a carrier for a genetic mutation, this may disqualify her from being an egg donor; some genetic mutations may not be disqualifying, but the sperm source may need to be screened for that mutation, prior to deciding to choose that egg donor. These tested mutations are for recessive disorders, so an embryo would only be at risk of having the disorder if BOTH the egg and sperm source were carriers for the identified mutation (see above noted article).

It is important to understand that new genetic mutations are identified almost every day; so recommendations for ethnic-based testing do potentially change year by year. While many genetic mutations have been identified on the human genome, many of these are very rare, and only mutations that are more frequently seen within one’s ethnic group are those that are recommended to be tested for. It is not appropriate, nor feasible, to check for all known possible mutations. The PFC Egg Donor Agency is kept apprised of current recommendation by our affiliated genetic counselors, so that our list of genetic screening tests may change over time. Rest assured that we keep informed of these changes, and comply with up-to-date recommendations.

While all this testing may seem cumbersome, it is to help assure that once you choose your egg donor, we can proceed with the IVF cycle with minimal risk of a cancellation, and start you on your way to achieve your dream of a healthy family.

Isabelle Ryan, M.D. is recognized by prestigious medical associations for her pioneering research leading to new insight into the important clinical problem of endometriosis related infertility. Dr. Ryan is medical director of PFC’s Third Party Parenting Program and Egg Donor Agency.

Question: I’m 38 years old and have been trying to get pregnant for about a year. All of my lab tests and my husband’s semen analysis have been normal. What do you think is the problem?

Answer: For women in their late 30s, it is naturally going to take longer to get pregnant. They are experiencing what I like to call “age-related sub-fertility.” Some may be lucky and become pregnant right away. However, for the majority of women, as we age fewer of the eggs we ovulate are chromosomally normal; and therefore fewer ovulations result in the release of a normal egg. It just may take more ovulations before that normal egg is released, fertilized, implants, and succeeds in becoming a baby. It is estimated that about 1 in 5 eggs are normal at age 35, about 1 in 10 at age 40, and only 1 in 25 at age 45. So, at age 38, if about 1 in 8 eggs are normal, you may have only 1 or 2 chances a year for successful conception. If your intercourse was not well-timed that cycle or there was some other subtle inefficiency, the chance for conception may be lost. The catch-22 with age-related sub-fertility is that it takes longer to get pregnant and meanwhile, you are getting older and your egg quality is also declining. For this reason, many women seek treatment with fertility medications or IVF as they get older. These treatments can increase the number of eggs produced and exposed to sperm in a single month, thus improving the odds that normal eggs will be found. The good news is that for most women still in their 30s, fertility treatments for age-related sub-fertility are often successful.

– Carolyn Givens, M.D.

Question: Can I collect my sperm sample at home?

Answer: Yes, sperm samples can be produced at home and brought into our office provided that you follow some simple guidelines. Most importantly, the instructions for producing a sample must be followed as if you were producing a sample in one of the two dedicated rooms in our office. You should shower in the morning and wash the genital area with soap and then rinse with plenty of water. Most of the samples we receive are produced by masturbation and you should be careful to wash your hands immediately before and after the collection. If you need lubrication and/or a condom to produce the sample, these must be supplied by PFC. Most condoms and commercially available lubricants are toxic to sperm in some way, but we can supply you with materials that we have tested and that we know do not kill sperm. You can take them home if that’s where you’ll produce your sample. Similarly, we must provide the container into which you will collect; again to ensure that it is sperm friendly.

The most important part of producing the sample at home is getting it to our office within 60-90 minutes of collection. Your semen sample contains sperm but also many enzymes that are important in the natural process of reproduction. One part of your reproductive tract, the seminal vesicles, produces enzymes that coagulate the semen immediately upon emission. This allows the viscous sample to remain within the vagina, a process that might be an evolutionary vestige of the copulation plugs that are seen in other mammals and that prevent the female from mating with a second male. Within 5-20 minutes however, other enzymes in the semen (this time from the prostate gland) liquefy the clotted semen, liberating the trapped sperm so that they can enter the cervix. Sperm in the first fraction of the semen are bathed in prostatic secretions and have better motility and survival than sperm in latter fractions which are bathed in vesicular fluid, since the seminal vesicles emissions are last in the ejaculatory sequence. This is why we always ask if any part of the ejaculate was lost during collection. If the first few drops of semen don’t get into the collection cup, we may have lost the best sperm and we may underestimate the quality of your sample.

All of these enzymes in the semen make it a hostile environment. Sperm trapped or left in semen will die relatively quickly, but sperm washed out of this enzyme bath can survive easily for 4 or 5 days in the laboratory. Semen can also cause uterine contractions, which is why we have to process sperm samples and remove it before performing your intra uterine insemination. Getting your semen sample to the laboratory within 60-90 minutes of collection allows us to assess your sperm before the enzymes can do any damage.

It is important that you have an abstinence period of at least 48 hours but not more than 7 days before giving us a sample. Samples produced after 2 days abstinence will usually have the highest numbers of motile sperm with the greatest forward velocity, when compared to samples produced after shorter or longer abstinence. Waiting too long between ejaculates is the biggest mistake we see, possibly because some men think that they can save all their sperm for the day of their big test. However, older sperm begin to die if ejaculations are infrequent and we see the percentage of live sperm decrease with increasing abstinence. Also, please remember that abstinence means no ejaculation, not just no intercourse!

Once your sample has been collected, it is important to avoid exposing it to extremes of heat or cold before bringing it to us in the laboratory. Don’t put it in the refrigerator while you take a shower. Don’t leave it on your dashboard in the sun while you pick up your dry cleaning. And don’t leave it in the glove compartment, forget about it for a week, and then deliver it to the lab. The sample will be fine at room temperature, and you don’t have to break the speed limit in trying to get it to us.

You will need to have made an appointment with us so that we know you will be bringing in a sample, and when you arrive in our office, a member of our staff will check your specimen in. We need to be sure that it is labeled properly and we will get some details from you regarding your abstinence period and how and when you produced the sample. And we will check your identification (usually your driver’s license). This last step is important in establishing the identity of the sample and is part of a “chain of custody” procedure that we use with all samples passing through our facility. We will examine and if appropriate, process the sample within 30 minutes of receiving it, or immediately if the sample is already 1 hour old. Hopefully we won’t be calling you to say that we need to repeat the test! Joe Conaghan, PhD

Joe Conaghan, PhD, HCLD, PFC’s ART Laboratory Director, is internationally known for his work with embryos. He helps to train and certify embryologists and andrologists via the American Board of Bioanalysts, (ABB) of which he is a member of the Board of Directors. He is an inspector for CAP, the USA licensing authority for IVF laboratories. He teaches reproductive technologies at San Francisco State University and is the Chair of the College of Reproductive Biology (CRB). CRB is a special interest group within the American Board of Bioanalysts (ABB).

Question: A friend of mine recently conceived a couple of months after two failed IVF cycles. Did she really need IVF in the first place or did the IVF change things to make it more likely she would get pregnant on her own later?

Answer: For some couples, IVF is necessary because the woman’s tubes are blocked or because the sperm count is drastically low. For these patients, IVF is probably the only way they are going to conceive. For the rest of our patients, those with endometriosis, mild male factor, decreased ovarian reserve, age-related, or unexplained infertility, there is some chance of conception, however low it is. For these patients, IVF is a way to boost (often dramatically) the chances of conceiving sooner than later.

For example, for a couple that has unexplained infertility of one to two years’ duration, the statistical chances that they are going to conceive on their own are probably in the range of 3% per month. Depending on the woman’s age, IVF could increase that to 20-50% per month of treatment. But even if she doesn’t happen to get pregnant with IVF, and the couple continues to try on their own, their chance of conception returns to that 3% per month, so they may conceive, even after a failed IVF attempt. There is no reason that the IVF itself should make that couple more likely to conceive later. Carolyn Givens, MD

Question: I’m a heavy coffee drinker, consuming five cups per day. I’m concerned that my addiction to caffeine will hurt my chances of getting pregnant. How much caffeine is acceptable?

Answer: Moderate caffeine intake for women trying to conceive is acceptable. As a general guideline, women trying to conceive should limit intake to 3 cups of coffee (or 300 mg of caffeine) per day (Organization of Teratology Information Services (OTIS) 2001). Results from large published studies have not demonstrated that moderate caffeine intake adversely affects fertility (International Food Information Council (IFIC) August 2002). Furthermore, caffeine consumption has not shown to have an impact on fertility or birth defects for the male partner or sperm donor (OTIS 2001).

For women who are pregnant, there have been several studies analyzing the affect of caffeine and pregnancy with the conclusions of those individual studies being mixed (IFIC August 2002). Keep in mind that if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the caffeine you consume may transfer to the infant. As such, guidelines for caffeine intake of pregnant or breastfeeding women are a little more rigid. The recommendation by OTIS and Motherisk is that consuming less than 1.5 cups of coffee (or 150 mg of caffeine) per day is not likely to increase the chances of miscarriage or a low birth weight baby. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that: “no harm is likely to occur in a nursing child whose mother drinks one cup of coffee a day.”

For more information on the affect of caffeine on fertility, visit the National Toxicology Program-Department of Health and Human Services website. The website provides a more detailed look at some of the clinical studies referenced above. Additionally it provides a chart showing the levels of caffeine in certain food and drinks. This information is available at: http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/common/caffeine.html.  Eldon Schriock, MD

Question: I had two elective abortions more than 10 years ago and I am worried that somehow that has something to do with the infertility I am now experiencing. Could the abortions be the reason I am now having trouble conceiving?

Answer: Most elective pregnancy terminations are done in the middle of the first trimester and are relatively simple, uncomplicated procedures. There is no reason to automatically assume that abortions have anything to do with subsequent infertility. Unless there is an infection, excessive bleeding requiring a second procedure or some other complication, the uterus and fallopian tubes should not suffer any long-term damage. On the other hand, any uterine procedures associated with prolonged bleeding or infection can lead to minor or major scarring of the uterine cavity or the fallopian tubes.

A mid-cycle ultrasound, just before ovulation, should be able to verify that your uterine lining is adequately thick and free of scar tissue. Also, a hysterosalpingogram (HSG) can detect uterine scarring or any obstruction of the fallopian tubes. Even if there is any scarring, which is unlikely, a simple procedure called operative hysteroscopy can often remove the scar tissue effectively. Only the most severe cases would require the use of a gestational carrier (surrogate).

Many, many women have had prior elective abortions and go on to have uncomplicated pregnancies. Women suffering from infertility often also suffer feelings of guilt about prior terminations. Some even think they are being punished for having elected to terminate a pregnancy. This thinking is irrational and is best replaced with positive thinking and a healthy attitude towards the future. This allows them to be active partners in the process of overcoming infertility. Carolyn Givens, MD

Question: I am an OB/GYN in the bay area and I have a patient that is interested in having a baby girl. She asked about “sperm spinning” as a method of gender selection and whether it would be useful in her situation.

Answer: Our office receives a lot of questions from patients and members of the public about sex selection. Our location in the very liberal San Francisco may be cause for the increasing demand we see in having a baby of a predetermined gender. People are also well informed about what can be achieved with modern technology, and since sex selection is a reality, there’s definite demand for it.

The procedure that you ask about, “sperm spinning” is better known in the medical and scientific communities as the “Ericsson Method”. The technology was developed by the German scientist Dr. Ronald Ericsson and has been licensed in the US and internationally since the early 1970’s. It takes advantage of the fact that sperm bearing a Y chromosome (that would make a boy) are very slightly lighter than X-chromosome bearing sperm (that would make a girl). The distribution of X and Y bearing sperm in a normal sperm sample is equal, but Ericsson’s method uses gentle centrifugation of sperm through a slightly viscous fluid to segregate the heavier (girl) sperm from the lighter (boy) sperm. Since the difference in the weight of the 2 types is so slight (about a 3% difference in amount of DNA), a perfect separation cannot be achieved. Ericsson’s website (www.childselect.com) claims a 78-85% success rate in couples seeking a boy and a 73-75% success rate for girls. At PFC, we do not endorse or recommend this method of sex selection, nor can we verify the above success rates. As far as we know, couples availing of sperm spinning are not given details of how well purified their samples are prior to using them for insemination.

A more reliable method for separating sperm in our opinion is the “Microsort” technique offered at the Genetics and IVF Institute (www.givf.com) in Fairfax, Virginia. The technique was developed originally by Dr. Lawrence Johnson at the US Department of Agriculture, and was later refined for use in humans in collaboration with GIVF. Microsort also takes advantage of the small difference in DNA content between “boy” and “girl” sperm. The sperm are dyed with a stain that binds to DNA and then an instrument called a flow cytometer can effectively separate populations of sperm based on how much dye they have incorporated. The Microsort scientists test a small aliquot of every separated sample to determine the exact enrichment that they have achieved. According to the latest figures posted on their website (http://microsort.net/index.php) the average enrichment for X-bearing sperm is 88% with 91% (525/574) of babies born being female. The technique is less effective for Y-bearing sperm with an average sample purity of 73% and 76% (127/152) of babies born being male. Bear in mind that the figures for babies born might be distorted since some patients may have terminated pregnancies that were not the gender that they were seeking. You may also have noticed from the GIVF data that there’s more demand for girls than boys. This is likely due at least in part to the fact that X separations work much better and therefore may be used more, but Dr. Ericsson’s website also claims a much stronger female demand even though his technology supposedly works better for boys. We do support the use of Microsort sperm here at PFC but there are limitations on the use of this technology. First, the sperm can only be separated in 2 laboratories in the US, (Fairfax and Huntington Beach in southern California), and the Microsort researchers prefer that you attend in person to give a fresh sperm sample. Second, the technology is currently only offered under an FDA approved clinical trial, and you have to be doing family balancing or trying to avoid a sex-linked disease in your family to be enrolled. For most people, unless you already have a child of a different gender from the one you are seeking, you won’t be able to participate in this FDA study.

Last, but not least is preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) that can be used to tell the sex of embryos created during in vitro fertilization (IVF). We feel that this technology is the most accurate of the sex determining strategies since there’s less than a 3% chance of a misdiagnosis. Embryos generated in an IVF cycle are subject to a biopsy procedure on the third day of growth that allows a single cell from the embryo to be analyzed to see if it has 2 X chromosomes (female) or X and a Y chromosome (male). IVF with PGS is the most accurate method for sex selection, but also the most involved and the most expensive. The Ericsson method is the easiest and the cheapest, but carries a greater risk of being inaccurate. Joe Conaghan, Ph

Question: How do I decide which one of your “Shared Risk” plans is best for me?

Answer: It is estimated that there are approximately 2 million infertile patients in the US. Approximately 1.5 million will seek treatment. Of these, about 750 K conceive with standard treatment and 750 K remain infertile. Of the 750 K who remain infertile, 50 K adopt, 50 K undergo IVF, and 650 K drop out of treatment. Only about ¼ to ¹/3 of infertile patients see a Reproductive Endocrinologist; most patients are only treated by gynecologists. The remaining ¹/3 don’t seek treatment because they believe that they can’t afford it, and ¹/3 don’t proceed to adequate treatment secondarily to financial barriers.

Given these daunting statistics, we understand that it is important for IVF clinics to help maximize access to all levels of fertility care, by sharing the financial burden and the risk of an IVF cycle. With these goals in mind, PFC offers two “shared risk” financial plans to our patients. We call our two plans: the Refund Plan and the Option 2 Plan.

When engaged with you in a shared risk plan, we are indicating that if you meet the appropriate medical criteria, we feel confident that we have a reasonable chance to help you achieve your goal of parenthood, and we are therefore willing to share in the financial risk associated with IVF. Sharing in the financial risk of treatment is a statement of confidence in our ability to help you overcome infertility.

As physicians, we are often asked by our patients to recommend a financial plan. Each patient’s case is different, and choosing the best plan for you has to do with your own comfort level in taking financial risk, dovetailed with your emotional comfort and commitment to treatment. These levels of comfort can only be addressed on a personal and individual level.

Some general questions to consider in analyzing the plans are the following:

• • What are your estimated chances of success with your fresh embryo transfer?
• • What are the chances of having any frozen embryos?
• • What are your estimated chances of success with your frozen embryos?
• • If you are not pregnant with this IVF cycle, would you want to proceed to another IVF cycle?
• • If you do not become pregnant after a treatment cycle, would you rather receive a refund and then decide on the next steps for treatment?

Depending on the answers to these questions, you can begin to define which financial plan may make the most sense. For patients who want some financial buffer if their cycle is not successful, the Refund Plan may be the best choice. It allows you to receive a refund and then decide if the next steps will be to do nothing more, to continue treatment, or to use the refund for other options such as adoption. For those who are ready to commit to a second IVF cycle attempt if the first cycle is not successful, the Option 2 Plan may be the preferred choice. This plan provides the option of 2 cycles for only a little more cost than a single cycle. In general, the Option 2 Plan is for those whose chances of having frozen embryos is less—making the probability of needing a second fresh IVF cycle greater. At PFC, we have two financial coordinators dedicated to providing all the information about costs which can then help you to make these important decisions.

As in any financial decision, there is no right or wrong answer, but only an answer which best fits your particular situation. This decision is then matched with your personal comfort level in sharing risk. For some patients, neither of these plans may seem appealing, and the Single Cycle Plan (pay for services as provided) will be most appropriate. For patients with insurance coverage for IVF, the Single Cycle plan is the only option.

While Pacific Fertility Center can not choose a financial plan for you, if you need more information about your specific fertility situation before deciding on a “shared risk” plan, please do not hesitate to discuss this with your physician or your financial coordinator.

Isabelle Ryan, MD