An Arkansas woman, Jennifer Huddleston, was visiting her local grocery store, Harps, when she saw a US Weekly Magazine protected by a covering that read: “Family Shield: To protect young Harp shoppers.” What was the family shield protecting young Harps shoppers from? A cover photo of Elton John, David Furnish and their new son, Zachary, born from a surrogate carrier. Huddleston took a photo of the censorship and posted it to Twitter, and thus the day’s drama began.

Harps has since issued an apology and has taken the shields down as a response to all of the negative press that they have been getting. They have also, however, voiced that they felt like they were in a lose-lose situation. Initially the shield went up because some shoppers complained that the content was inappropriate — yet when they reacted to one set of complaints, the outrage rose to a much more monumental scale giving them far more press then I’m sure they would have liked.

What happened here with this once incidence in Arkansas, is probably indicative of a much bigger picture that is going to begin coming to the forefront of global consciousness in the coming years. Surrogacy and gestational carriers have been becoming more and more prevalent throughout the world with advances in medicine making it easier and easier for a surrogate to carry someone else’s baby for them. In an earlier post we talked about Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban having their own child from a surrogate — Elton John was just one more recent case of surrogacy made visible because of the fame that is associated with the recipient.

Because surrogacy is such a new concept, many people still greet it with fear and hesitation. The same was true with early IVF procedures and reactionary concerns that we were soon going to all be having test-tube babies. This has turned out not to be the case, and in fact, IVF is now a fairly commonplace procedure allowing many women, who years ago would have not been able to be mother, to have their own children. Someday perhaps surrogacy will be the same, but for now, we still get some small and large daily drama when it hits our newstands, censored or not.

A new proposal has been made by the independent Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology to allow embryos, eggs, and sperm to be stored for more than 10 years for assisted reproductive purposes. The debate, which has been recently opened up, challenges the current 10-year limitation that was set by the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act on November 22, 2004 which stipulates that an genetic material that was collected on or before the Act came into effect can only be used until 2014 at which point it would be discarded.

However, the independent Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has proposed that a new set of guidelines that could extend that 10-year limit. The proposed new guidelines would allow clinics or researchers to submit applications to the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology on a case-by-case basis to extend the storage period and the committee would be able to approve extensions for ongoing fertility treatment, ongoing or future research for gametes and non-viable embryos, and for people who are expecting to undergo medical treatment that could impair their fertility.

Informed consent for extending storage would have to be given by individuals (like donors) whose gametes have been stored or used to create stored embryos for treatment purposes.

The discussion will close on March 11, after which the advisory committee would consider all submissions, revise them if necessary, and consult with the Minister of Health before issuing its final guidelines.

We’ll let the post speak for itself, but we recently saw that someone posted about their recent experience with New Hope and the Clinical Trial (more information can be found at http://ivfclinicaltrial.com). We are always happy when we are able to help people realize their dreams!

http://forums.fertilitycommunity.com/vitro-fertilization-ivf/2020179767-new-hope-fertility-center-clinical-trial-469.html

We recently heard that one of our patients, KS, is newly pregnant. She conceived at New Hope from Natural IVF (no meds) on a fresh day-5 blastocyst transfer. She had treatment at another NY clinic cancelled for not producing enough follicles for conventional IVF (only 3). However, at New Hope, we found that her primary issue was a tubal issue, and had nothing to do with the quality of the couple’s eggs or sperm. Natural Cycle IVF (NIVF) is an excellent option for patients with tubal problems because there is little to no risk for the patient since we don’t use medications or alter hormone levels at all. KS is a good example of a case where the sperm and egg are healthy, they just have a hard time meeting for fertilization (because of tubal issues). Fertilizing in vitro (outside the body) solves the problem fully without meds/changing hormones etc.

The Washington Post recently came out with an article about health insurance coverage for infertility treatments. With the rapid growth of fertility care options and advances in IVF and other related fertility technology, more and more people are utilizing fertility treatment options to help them have children. Unfortunately, the article points out, coverage for infertility these days is not a part of many plans, even for businesses in states that mandate that insurance plans cover infertility.

A survey conducted for Resolve: The National Infertility Association back in 2006 found that only about one out of every five employers cover fertility care treatments like in vitro fertilization (IVF). While the major reason that employers seemed to skip fertility treatment was concerns about what it would do to the premiums, over 90 percent of employees that offered fertility care insurance reported that it had not significantly increased their costs.

Michelle Andrews of the Post writes that, “Even if a plan covers IVF, it may cover only a certain number of cycles, or attempts, or cap the dollar amount it will pay for services… Other wrinkles can also trip up would-be parents. For example, Maryland’s law requires coverage of in vitro fertilization but stipulates that it be performed with the “spouse’s sperm,” a tough hurdle for same-sex couples or those with male infertility problems.”

Andrews cites a statistic from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that one in every eight couples of childbearing age is infertile. That’s a whopping 12.5%, higher than many of the other ailments that are more commonly covered.

The Institute of Medicine has assembled a group of experts to deliberate on many of the issues surrounding assisted reproduction and fertility treatment in light of new opportunities and regulations that are coming into the forefront of public consciousness. One of the primary concerns is trying to determine which essential health benefits should be included in polices available through state-based insurance exchanges starting in 2014. Recommendations that come from this committee will go to the Department of Health and Human Services for approval.