I V F C U T S

In latest news, women of the Liberal Party are against the proposed cuts to the IVF programme. Many other groups also oppose these cuts.
AMA president, Dr Bill Glasson, described Treasurer Peter Costello as a "pumpkin eater" - "If the Treasurer goes ahead with his IVF budget cuts, women and families with hopes of a miracle baby in the pumpkin patch have another threat to their dreams – Peter, Peter, the pumpkin eater"

What are your views on the proposed IVF cuts ?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Lib-women-demand-end-to-IVF-cuts/2005/04/27/1114462103506.html?oneclick=true

If you would like to contact your pollies:

Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au (Shadow health minister
and not in favour of the cuts)

http://www.pm.gov.au/email.cfm (This site to email
the Prime Minister John Howard)

http://www.treasury.gov.au/ministerial.asp (This site
to email the Treasurer Peter Costello)


Tony.Abbott: MP@aph.gov.au

In case anyone is interested Julia Gillard, Shadow
health minister has organised a petition. I have that
on my computer and can email to anyone wishing to get
signatures. Email me at wendynook@optusnet.com.au
The petition needs to be back to Julia by 9th May.

Ladies they were to table the matter in parliament on
10th May but I have received advice this morning from
Sandra Dill, Director of Access, A national
infertility service that the senators will be
discussing it this Tuesday 3rd May and she urgently
wants the following pollies to be emailed:

Key MPs to fax

The Hon John Howard MP
Fax: 02 9816 1349

Mr. Kerry Bartlett, MP - Chief Govt Whip
Kerry.Bartlett.mp@aph.gov.au
Phone: 02-4751-7494
Fax: 02-4751-7495

If you had the opportunity individually addressed
(same) emails to these
others would also help:

Senator Helen Coonan (NSW)
senator.coonan@aph.gov.au
Tel: (02) 6277 7480
Fax: (02) 6273 4154

Senator Marise Payne (NSW)
Tel: (02) 6277 3810
Fax: (02) 6277 3811
Email: senator.payne@aph.gov.au

Senator, the Hon Judith Troeth (Vic)
Tel: (03) 9593 9511
Fax: 03 9593 9971
senator.troeth@aph.gov.au


Also if anyone can do so write to your newspaper to
keep this in the media


NEWSPAPER LETTERS CONTACTS:

The Australian
letters@theaustralian.com.au

The Age
letters@theage.fairfax.com.au

Sydney Morning Herald
letters@smh.fairfax.com.au

Daily Telegraph (Sydney)
letters@dailytelegraph.com.au

The Courier-Mail (Brisbane)
cmletters@qnp.newsltd.com.au

Herald Sun (Melbourne)
hsletters@heraldsun.com.au

Advertiser (Adelaide)
advedit@adv.newsltd.com.au

Mercury (Hobart)
mercuryedletter@dbl.newsltd.com.au


Good luck to everyone with this. It will be a nervous
wait to see what happens.

Also see the following article, Abbott admits he is
wrong.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15128730-
2,00.html


Wendy 34
DH 40
TTC # 1 June 2004
Infertilty diagnosed 25th Feb
2005 damaged tubes.
Starting IVF March 2005

They're a bunch of rotten, mean, nasty old buggers :mad:
Makes me SO cranky!!
T

i think it is just wrong....


<a href="http://www.tickercentral.com"><img border="0" src="http://www.tickercentral.com/view/31wd/1"></a>

Hi Sue,

Congratulations on the birth of your daughter. I was also really saddened to read in your sig of your previous m/cs.

It was a brave move for you to post your message in this thread. I respect your right to have a different view, but unfortunately like so many of the public, it is based on no personal experience of IVF (nor do you appear to have done any research).

I can't begin to tell you of the struggle of many of the ladies in the AC chat. This is a support group for a minority who already feel dislocated. We don't have any other options. If we do fall into the "older" group - will three cycles be enough to get us our take home babies - what if four cycles is the charm??? Just imagine if IVF was your only shot.

Your ill informed view really stands to upset and inflame lots of the ladies doing AC. They are already going through so much. Perhaps it would be a thoughtful gesture to reword your message or do further research about the topic before posting such strong views.

This message was edited by diva on Monday, 2 May 2005 @ 8:46 AM

Hi ladies

This is inded the Hot Topic Thread and as such this thread is open from debate from both sides of the equation.
All that we ask is that people are respectful of other peoples opinions and that no personal attacks are entered into.
People are allowed to argue "For" or "Against" the topic. No one should be excluded from this thread because they do not agree or maybe do not fully know everything about IVF.
Please allow everyone to voive an opinion, but please also take care when voiving your opinion.

Hi,

Please see my edited message. I agree that you have a right to post your opinion. I was only requesting that it be an informed one based on research and knowledge of the issue.

Did you know, for example, that if the "baby bonus" was reduced by just $50 - it would more than meet the expense placed on the health system by IVF.

Did you also know that 1 in 35 babies are born from IVF services. Given our ageing population, have you ever wondered who is going to pay tax during your retirement? I'm hoping it will be my IVF children.

Sue,

You are probably correct that most women going through IVF would not be able to fit in more than 3 fresh cycles a year anyway. This is because most women do respond fairly well to the drugs. It is a small minority of women who don't respond well and perhaps have only one or two eggs to develop and often nothing to transfer on that cycle. This means that they have to leap straight into another cycle. We had someone on our AC board like that and she finally got pregnant on her forth or fifth attempt- yay!

Now my issue is why was IVF targetted for a cost cut? I am deeply suspicious because it saves only $7M. It could actually work out more costly because women will be encouraged to transfer more embryos at a time increasing the number of multiple births which requires more use of expensive NICUs, high tech births etc. The women being limited will also be getting older as she waits to cycle again and will keep on trying year after year and as we know fertility declines with age. This will result in more total cycles that have to be subsided by medicare in the long run.

And yet there are many other areas where Medicare could save more money.

Why not private obstetrician costs which has cost medicare $20m alone since September this year? Why not unnescessary xrays and blood tests?

Private ob costs in my book is a luxury and if medicare is so hard up it should not be funding areas such as these. Women can get quality expertise in the public system.

However when it comes to whether or not a woman can have a family or not that is NOT an elective luxury. I find it amusing that every single person I've heard say IVF is a lifestyle choice or a luxury are either men or have children already.

I feel that the singling out of IVF is deeply unfair and isolating. I also feel that if this is not resisted that the pollies will go on to make further cuts in years to come. Even if this battle is lost they will have got the message that infertiles and their sympathisers don't take these sort of things lying down.

Those in favour of the IVF cuts - are you also in favour of cuts to other "luxuries" such as the baby bonus and the private ob fees? I suspect that when it personally hits home for a person they quickly change their minds.

Rachael

This message was edited by Rachael1970 on Monday, 2 May 2005 @ 9:14 AM

I have a quick question -

does a cycle refer to the collection and then fertilisation of one lot of eggs only? Not each attempt at transfer? So if say for example 12 eggs are harvested and 8 are successfully fertilised, and a couple choose to have 2 embryos transferred with each attempt then they get "4 goes" all within the one cycle?

So if this is the case then I guess not many couples would get the chance for more than 3 cycles in one year.
BUT I do have friends who only ever got two or three eggs per stim cycle so they would be penalised by these cutbacks, as opposed to other friends who are lucky enough to have conceived a second child out of the same original 'batch'. Surely with these kinds of success it all evens out in the wash without us having to further restrict couples for not being as successful and have them miss out on opportunities just because they have had their quota for the year.

I agree that they should look at cutting the baby bonus to cover these costs if that is the issue. They were even talking about increasing the baby bonus at one stage, is this still happening? By cutting it and covering IVF treatments means hopefully more people will be accessing the baby bonus and increasing the birth rate which is what the government claims they want to do. Seems hypocritical to me to cut one service while encouraging fertile women to bear more children. No-one I know has had a child based simply on the cash incentive. Children cost way more than $3000! JMHO I have emailed all these pollies with my 2c worth ;p

Thanks, I have not needed IVF myself and just need a little clarification on the terms.

Ally

Wasn't the baby bonus increased to encourage people to have any/more children because we are a bit behind the times with maternity leave/payment? I am not saying I wouldn't be happy to give mine up for someone to have the chance to have a baby! I have a dear, dear friend who was lucky to have a beatiful baby on her 1st try with IVF and we are all praying she and her husband may not need to go through it again, but if they do, I would give them my baby bonus if it would help! I just don't think it is the answer. A lot of families use that money wisely and can really use it when it is paid.

Also, yes, I suppose a Private Ob is a 'luxury', however, isn't everyone using the public system also going to put a strain on the public health system causing the need for cuts somewhere else?

Anyway, just to make it clear, I am against the cutbacks on IVF!!

Yes that's correct. A cycle refers to the actual stimulated cycle where eggs are harvested and then fertilised. I am considered to be a good responder and have had between 17 and 22 eggs collected and have a decent number to freeze. My first IVF worked but in TTC #2 I have had 6 transfers so far. It's a numbers game really and for your friends who only produce a few eggs they would be severely penalised by the proposed cuts. It doesn't mean that their eggs are poor quality - it's just that some women are more resistent to the stimulating drugs than others.

Rachael

Rachael

With the cuts, are they referring to the number of times you can have a transfer or a harvest or both?

Sorry to be silly, just want to be clear.

Thank you!

I thought I'd also post some facts about adoption because in this recent debate we IVFers have been asked questions like "why don't you just adopt? There are loads of children who need homes."

1) There are very few children within Australia who are free for adoption. All the state governments prefers to have the children fostered with the view of returning them to their biological families in the long term. There is no shortage of adoptive parents, except perhaps with certain ethnic minorities.

2) The total cost of an international adoption is between $20,000 - $50,000 per child depending on which country you go for. These costs take the form of admin costs, cost of travelling to the overseas country, accommodation (some countries require you to stay there for several weeks), a donation to the orphanage, translation costs etc. It all adds up.

3) The adoption process takes between 2 and 5 years again depending on which state you are adopting from and which country you are applying to.

4) Parents have to meet a criteria in terms of age, health, income etc both in Australia and in the overseas country. Both DH and I have health issues and we could not find a country who were happy with us.

5)International adoption from Australia is subject to the rules outlined in the Hague Convention, which means that only a limited number of countries are open to Australians, only a small percentage of the total number of destitute children are legally available for adoption.

So basically for infertile Australians the most affordable and easiest way to form a family is through undertaking assisted conception. Politicians wanting to make the cuts have made the comment that our IVF treatment system is the cheapest in the world and make comparisons to Britain and America. However what they don't say is that it is easier to adopt in America and Britain. This is why it's important for us to preserve the accessibility of the IVF system.

Sorry for all the unsolicited information. It's just that we get asked so much about it that I thought I put it here to help those who may not know about the situation with adoption.

Rachael

Hi Allie



As far as I understand (without having seen the policy document) it's the number of times you have a harvest (or egg pick up). So if you had 2 eggs and they failed to fertilise then that's too bad.

It would be better if they counted the transfer itself so that women whose embryos failed to fertilise or develop can have another chance. Sometimes it only needs a change in their drug protocol for them to have a better outcome next time.

The first cycle is often regarded as a test cycle because until the woman actually goes through the cycle they can't predict how she will respond. They then implement the changes (e.g. changing the dose of drugs) in the next cycle.

Rachael

This is a very hot topic....one which I don't really want to enter into, because both sides are so passionate.

I am against the IVF cuts, even did an interview with the Australian newspaper to express my view.

The real reason for my post, is to help the women who asked for some insight into the IVF process. To cut my very long ttc story short (7yrs in total to be exact), I did IVF, 4 cycles in less than a year. I did not produce enough eggs each time to freeze any and it was only on my 4th that I was lucky enough to get my twins. Had I been denied this 4th cycle, I may not have ended up with my twins. I did back to back cycles in less than a year, had 2 miscarriages out of 2 cycles, 1 negative, it was very exhausting, but I got my babies on my 4th time.

When you look at the total cost the govt saves ($7million) by limiting the cycles to 3 per year, it works out to be one-third of 1% of the total health budget. That's a pittance really.

Megsy
ttc 6yrs
IVF twins born 29.10.04
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/o/ourbubs

Oscar Jasmine

This message was edited by Megs71 on Monday, 2 May 2005 @ 11:34 AM

Re cost, well that's hard to answer as every clinic is different and every state is different. In my situation, each of my cycles cost around $6,000 of which the government subsidised just less than half (probably around $2,800).

I guess why IVFers are so passionate about this subject is because we are not infertile by choice, just as a diabetic is not a diabetic and needs to be on insulin by choice. I view my infertility, as I believe most infertile ladies do, as a disease. The govt wouldn't limit a diabetic to only 3 subsidised insulins a year and I don't believe infertile women (IVFers) should be any different.

I applaud you for wanting to understand. Most people would just ignore this topic if it didn't affect them. I hope the ladies on here can give you enough of an insight into what it's like to deal with IVF and infertility so that you can understand our passion on this topic.

Megsy
ttc 6yrs
IVF twins born 29.10.04
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/o/ourbubs

Oscar Jasmine

This message was edited by Megs71 on Monday, 2 May 2005 @ 12:20 PM

The total cost of my cycle at my clinic in Sydney is roughly $8,500.

Of that $2,400 is a medicare subsidy, which was there before the safety net.
I get about $1,000 back from my private health fund.
I get about $2,300 back from the medicare safety net. (It will be closer to $3,000 next time as I have now crossed the threshold).

Which leaves me roughly $2,800-$2,100 out of pocket for each fresh cycle. Some IVF procedures e.g. ICSI which is used for severe male factor cases such are not covered by medicare or the safety net.

It makes me laugh when John Howard said that you don't get anything for free. It's not free as it is.

Rachael

What happens with those who don't have private insurance? Do they get more of a rebate or pay more out of pocket?

Thank you!

I have PHI. I am doing my first round of IVF currently. My PHI does not cover a THING.

We have reached the Medicare safety net already. Including the 80% rebate under this scheme, we get a grand total of approx. $1100 back from Medicare, from a cycle costing us well over $5,000.

DH and I estimate that we are funding a good 80% of our cycle on our own. Granted, it's because we are attempting to have a family while trying to get around a chromosomal problem that renders 5 out of every 6 of our pg's affected (either ending in m/c or severely shortening the life expectancy of around 5% of any children we conceive).

To get around this, we are using IVF. If we don't use IVF and go on to conceive and give birth to a severely disabled child, this child will drain the health system far more. The very small amount we receive back as a rebate is all we can hope for. It would cost the govt a lot less, in our case, to allow us to cycle until we are successful. The alternative is grim - both from a financial and emotional point of view.

Personally, I may not stand to be affected by the cuts (we hope, as we are expecting that 3 cycles is all we will need/be able to cope with for now). I am making a huge song and dance about this, though, as if we do not put our collective "foot down" about this today, I fear what further cutbacks we will receive tomorrow.

And indeed, good question about why they chose to target such a specific, small area where MOST PEOPLE undertaking any AC procedures LARGELY FUND THEIR OWN cycles. Isn't that almost like kicking someone when they're already down?

Please don't believe everything you read in newspapers from ill-informed citizens quoting figures. I have seen enough already to make my skin crawl. Unfortunately, they are the ones who seem to be noticed by the public at large, making this a hotly debated topic, due to the misinformation people who don't properly understand about IVF are receiving. It's the blind informing the blind. Sorry. :confuse:

Disillusioned.

[font=Arial]
Ella's story: http://www.erwdesign.com.au/parallel.htm
7 more angel bubs, lost early
TTC since Jan. 2000
IVF with PGD 1st round Apr. '05

This message was edited by Kirril on Monday, 2 May 2005 @ 1:26 PM

Hi AliH,

Those with private health insurance or inadequate coverage will be more out of pocket unfortunately.

Rachael

So, basically, Medicare is not 'funding' much of the IVF costs anyway, so why do they care about how many times someone 'tries' per year? It makes no sense when you get so little back from them anyway! It seems so nuts! Thank you for all sharing your personal information and stories. I just wish you all the very best of luck and lots of beautiful babies no matter how many times you have to try! I will be sure to spread the word amongst my friends (knowledge being power and all that) and promise to write to the politicians listed on this website.

This is a reply to the IVF cuts. I think it is fair enough limiting it to 3 tries which are rebatable as the pressures on medicare are enormous, and as far as age 42 is concerned three rebatable tries are more than enough. I can understand younger people wanting children to want more of a go with Medicare, but at 42 I think it is time to come to grips with the whole idea. Let's be reasonable and think this through.

Florence,

As stated above you'd need to do more than target IVF to save money for medicare. $7M is not going to address much of the $1bn blow out in the safety net.

That saving in IVF could well be eroded by the complications of the new policy such as the over 42 year olds transferring multiple embryos in the knowledge that the number of IVF attempts will be restricted for them.

As far as I can see on our AC boards I can think of a couple of 41-42 year olds who elected to transfer only one embryo for their first IVF cycles at the advice of their doctors. Now if they transfer 3 (the maximum allowed legally) and all embryos take then the policy will backfire, since multiple births are very expensive. If the babies are very premature then there is the risk that they will need lifelong therapy too due to irreversible brain damage or celebral palsy.

Rachael

Yes Florence, lets be reasonable. I'm guessing you're not infertile!
As for the rest of us maybe we should all just shut-up because obviously we're just waisting money! How selfish of us.


Larissa 29, DH 34
TTC #1 since August 02,
1st IUI July, unsuccessful
1st IVF September, BFN
FET #1 M/C dammit!!!

Hi again ladies.

Just wanted to point out and emphasise again that while you may disagree with someone elses opinions they have a right to express them and everyone should respect this right.

This is in the Hot Topic, and as such you will get some people that hold a different view to others, however that is not grounds to to attack, nor grounds to make sweeping statements.

Here are some interesting comments:








From http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/comm...255E421,00.html

Rachael

I agree with Rachel and Larissa. $7M is morning tea money for Costello & Co.

I'm biting my tongue (hard). I guess we infertiles have to be respectful of others rights to have opposing views on this issue (despite how ignorant or hurtful they may be).

Until something personally (or vicariously) touches you, you don’t have any appreciation of the struggle.

Hi Catalyst,

I agree but I hope that you give the IVF ladies here some lee way because one side of the debate has no or little personal involvement whereas the other side is very emotionally involved. It makes it hard sometimes when you see a post from someone who expresses an opinion but who appears to have no experience or involvement. I myself have to take a deep breath and very carefully write my reply in response.

I have to say that some of the ladies who have posted here have been lovely and sincere in asking questions in a real desire to truly understand both sides. I hope it continues! :-)

Rachael

Hi Rachael

You are doing great with your replies, and I thank you for patiently responding to other members questions.

In many topics in Hot Topic one side will always have more at stake emotionally. This has happened on many ocassions before, such as age issues etc.

I think if someone has problems dealing with what another member has posted, you need to step back for a while before you post, especially with this topic.

I am keeping a very close eye on this thread and have discussed a couple of posts with another Moderator as well.

The warning I posted was to attempt to pre empt any possible derailment early on.

If something upsets any of you to the point that you want to post something that may go against Guidelines, then I urge you to contact myself via email or PM.

If I am not online, email me anyway, as I am not usually far away. However if I do not respond withing 10 minutes then please contact Kim or Heather for assistance.

Also another thing with the over 42 year olds (or with anyone really) is that all decent IVF doctors will be completely honest with her if he or she believes that she has very little chance of conceiving through IVF.

I believe very few 42 + year olds will continue treatment very far past that point. IVF treatment is gruelling and after a while you just want to live again. I myself have a personal plan to stop at some point and I am just 34!
Even if the + 42 year old wants to continue she is likely to go for the donor egg route which isn't covered by the safety net anyway as the treatment cycle is in the name of the donor.

I believe we need to put our trust in doctors and the IVF patients themselves. The decision to stop treatment should be a personal one.

Rachael

It's pretty difficult to "discuss" a topic when obviously the effort you've put into giving personal evidence to lend legitimate weight to the debate is negated by broadbrush generalisations.

I am nowhere NEAR 42 years of age but probably am going to be affected by this change (if it comes in). Why does the one argument consistently coming up - in opinion polls, online and in papers, etc. - involve the age of the person undertaking IVF?? Why does it look like, from where I sit, apparently you're only doing IVF if you're over 40?? Sure, why not penalise all of us then.

It's akin to making sweeping stereotypes about race, religion....
AliH, if I could, I'd reach through the screen and kiss you!! THAT is exactly the point. Spreading the knowledge and the REAL facts is why we are trying to get this out in the open. You've listened, and you've obviously come to an informed conclusion. Thank you a thousand times over.


[font=Arial]
Ella's story: http://www.erwdesign.com.au/parallel.htm
7 more angel bubs, lost early
TTC since Jan. 2000
IVF with PGD 1st round Apr. '05

Hi...just wanted to share a little of my story.. I have ovarian failure due to a genetic problem..Sooo not my choice or anything that can be fixed easily. Consequently i need an egg donor and always have needed an egg donor. Could never have got preggers any other way. My lovely friend Jane has donated three times(well June will be three) since october for us.. Out of this we have only ever had 2 embies to freeze and we transfer 2 each time..so I am coming up to transfer no 4..Now I feel relatively lucky because I have a friend who will do whatever it takes to help me get preggers..Other people who require an ED are not so lucky and have to go find a new donor for each stim cycle.. not much of our cycle is covered by Medicare because it is in Janes name..but it does make a difference...then we pay all of her costs as well(flights from interstate) and have to ask her each time we get a BFN will she do it all again..We pay top hospital cover none of which helps at all because the only hospital stay is for Jane as a day case..Now I know that people who are using EDs are probably a little different but just think it may help illustrate how a blanket rule like 3 cycles is not going to work and how everyones situation is so different,difficult and heart breaking for the person/people in it..I'm not really sure i've used the right words to get across my message and I'm sorry it seems long..
Michelle
3 x embie transfers oct04 BFN
dec 04 (FET)BFN
march 05 M/C 5 weeks
another stim cycle June 05

This message was edited by belleshel on Monday, 2 May 2005 @ 4:15 PM

I feel it is callous to introduce such cuts, especially when we read figures about the declining population. As an 'older mum' who had her first child at 41 (I am hoping for another) I don't think older women should be penalised.

I was blessed that after considering IVF (and not even being able to afford the basic costs) we conceived naturally and gave birth to a truly healthy child. However there are many of us who may need IVF to have any child be it 1str 2nd or 10th! Why sould we, the ones willing to love and look after and nurture a child be denied the process?

Having said all of this, I am truly greatful that our government gives us so many opportunities at either free or subsidised health care, many countries do not have in place any subsidised health care and certainly no IVF clinics that are by and large available to 'the masses'.

My prayer is that there will be no cuts, and that those of us wanting so hard to try for a child can experience the medical that God (in some cases with a helping hand from modern science)can give us.

dobbieray

Me - 41
Hubby - 42
Baby - son Joshua born 16/07/04 at 8lb 1z 20" long

<a href="http://www.tickercentral.com"><img border="0" src="http://www.tickercentral.com/view/2gjf/1"></a>
Be gentle with yourself
Love
Dobbieray

Rachael, I was coming on here to post that statistic about how much a premmie baby costs! He also said in that article that it is a fact that making these cuts will result in more multiple premmie births. They know this for a fact because that was the case back in 1990 when there was a 6 cycle limit. Having read that I just don't get how this proposal can even be considered - we KNOW it will result in more premmies, we KNOW that those premmies will cost more than the money that has been saved through the IVF cuts and we KNOW that the cuts will hurt a lot of people (those needing more cycles and those losing premmie babies). What is the government up to???

I really think that there is a bigger agenda than IVF. I think that the Government wants to start cutting Medicare coverage to what they consider "non essential" items. I also think that they have deliberately chosen IVF for the first cut as it is so divisive and because so many people don't understand the issues related to IVF. It is such a small amount of money - there must be something more to it....

Me (27)
DH (30)
TTC #1 since May '03
Lap in Oct'04 - Stage 2 Endo
3 IUIs - BFN
IVF #1 - transfer of blastocyst on 20th April
Blood test - 4th May (if I make it that far)

Absolutely Firstbub,

In the USA where IVF is extremely expensive it is not uncommon for doctors to transfer 4 or 5 embryos at a time.
I think there is a relationship between the personal expense of IVF and the number of embryos transferred. Australia is considered to be a leader in the IVF world for it's strong single embryo transfer culture.

I remember when I was pregnant with my daughter I belonged to an IVF pregnancy board and there was one lady to was pregnant with 5 babies! She "selectively reduced" down to three but then lost all three of them at 23 weeks. It was very sad.
The American girls could not believe that I had become successfully pregnant with just a single embryo transfer. They thought I was mad for choosing to transfer one.

If IVF is made to become more expensive to the individual then doctors will lose their freedom to pioneer more safe IVF techniques. There will be more pressure on them to achieve a pregnancy at all costs.

Rachael

I agree with this 100%. They are just setting a precedent for future cutbacks to the Medicare system. Slowly and surely reducing our benefits. This will NOT just be limited to IVF. I think that doctors should be the ones to decide on our medical care in each individual situation...they are qualified to do this. I think we are moving into very dangerous territory now and I dread to think what the next few years will bring in changes to the health system.



Cathy
DH
DD (Clomid baby)
TTC#2 since August '03
Clomid 100mg for 5 months
HSG 8/04 - tubes blocked. Lap 8/04 tubes unblocked
3 IUI's - BFN
IVF#1 - BCP since 23/4

Thank you to all those girls who are in support of fighting these IVF cuts and have done so much for the cause already and to those seeking to find out more information and become informed.

It is ridiculous that they think cutting funding will help.

I hope that some of the fertiles that are for the cuts long and hard. Imagine if down the track something happens to you and you are no longer considered fertile... (There are a couple of AC girls who fell naturally the first time and now need help!) What if your sister needs help down the track???? Or even your daughter????

Don't think that because infertility doesn't effect you now, one day it may.

My DH and I have MF, I am apparently healthy, so should fall quiet easily. I did first go and had a chemical pg.I am now up to my 3rd stim cycle. (2nd this year and we are only in May) I have gotten 11 and 9 eggs, but have only ever ended up with 1 to transfer and 1 to freeze. This time we are transferring 2. So if I end up with none to freeze I could be up to my 3rd stim cycle by July and that is halfway through the year!

I am lucky I have a great health fund that covers all my hospital costs except for the anethasist (sp?), but Medicare still only covers about $2200 as we need to do ICSI. So we are still a fair bit out of pocket!

Just thought I would tell all those people who have no idea
about the cost of IVF, just what my last cycle cost. Approx
$9000, and if I had to pay that as my fourth cycle for the year
then I would be broke. I would happily pay that amount if I
could be guaranteed a baby out of it, but like natural
conception there is only a % chance with each cycle, and
thus there will always be a % of women that will take more
than 3 cycles. I have done one cycle, and am waiting to see
if I was successful. I pray to god that I don't need more than
3, but I have been viciously campaigning and gathering
support for our cause. Unfortunately too many people adopt
the "it doesn't affect me" attitude, which annoys me as if they
were in my shoes they would be worried sick. Needless to
say these people are the fertile ones who fell at the drop of a
hat. I didn't choose to be infertile and I have worked and paid
taxes all my life. What about asking some of the smokers,
drinkers, and over-eaters to pay towards their health
problems THAT THEY HAVE CAUSED TO THEMSELVES!!!
Infertility is not something that we have caused to happen to
us...

Wendy 34
DH 40
TTC # 1 June 2004
Infertilty diagnosed 25th Feb
2005 damaged tubes.
Starting IVF March 2005

To the non IVFer it may at first seem reasonable to limit
couples to 3 cycles per year, however when you sit and think
about what these changes mean and could mean for the
future it is worrisome:

1. The govt is breaking a key election promise, one which
swayed quite a number of people to voting for them. If they
couldn't afford it then why offer it in the first place?

2. If they make these type of limits now then what will that
lead to in the future? Will they start limiting people to only
one IVF child? Will they exclude people with secondary
infertility?

3.As IVF patients we will be worse off than before the
introduction of the Safety Net. Previously there were no
restrictions on the number of cycles a couple could
undertake. This decision was left up to our doctor and us.
The proposed changes effectively give the government the
right to decide how often we can try to conceive each year –
an unfair intrusion into our private lives.

4. The proposal also discriminates between different IVF
patients. As we understand it, the proposal seeks to limit
each patient (aged under 42) to 3 stimulated (fresh) cycles
per year. Some patients produce enough eggs in one fresh
cycle to freeze unused embryos for later use. These patients
are able to do one or more cycles using their frozen embryos
for each stimulated cycle. Other patients do not have any
embryos left over to freeze and would need to undergo a
subsequent fresh cycle and could reach the proposed 3
cycle cap within one year whereas the patients using frozen
embryos would not reach the cap. Patients would in effect be
penalised for not producing enough embryos.

5. There are many women (such as myself) who are lucky
enough to fall pg before the three cycles are up. Why pick on
those who are less fortunate? Surely the money they save
from people like myself would balance out those who need to
do more cycles??

6. It is ironic that while I was doing IVF I was a drain on the
public purse but once I fell pregnant last year I was able to
claim our obstetrics fees through Medicare (having chosen to
go to a private hospital) and was given a $3000 baby bonus
once we gave birth just like the rest of the 40,000 couples
since September last year. If the govt truly wishes to save
money then why not address this anomaly??



Andy
DS#1 9.7.99
DS#2 28.10.04 - FET baby

Cathy, you've hit the nail on the head. There's your paragraph to send to every single media entity you can get your hands on. Perhaps then people who are not affected by this first change, which just happens to be IVF, may start to catch on and join the stand we are taking.

There is a poll on the Sunday transcript as to whether IVF should be funded.

At the moment the vote is 90% of Australians are against it being funded.

Get your family and friends, dogs, cats and whoever to vote today, we need to boost the numbers.

It's simple, just a click on the link and a vote in the right way.

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/

If the govt wants to cut IVF funding then they need to make
adoption a little easier for us who desperately want a family.
I will leave you all to wonder how this may be achieved as I
don't want to start another debate.

Wendy 34
DH 40
TTC # 1 June 2004
Infertilty diagnosed 25th Feb
2005 damaged tubes.
Starting IVF March 2005

This message was edited by wen70 on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 @ 12:00 PM

oooooooooooh I resisted for two days!! Honestly infertilty is a medical condition and should not be singled out over others.

I have spent THOUSANDS and I mean THOUSANDS of dollars in my quest to be a mother and have been lucky enough to have had this last year some welcome money back from medicare - as I'm sure every person here has done.

Please be aware though that alot of IVF is NOT covered by medicare eg - microinjection of sperm into egg for male factor issues ($1000 per cycle), assisted hatching (???can't remember how much but my visa could tell me), needles you have to have at 150 a pop depending on your protocol. Honestly it never stops.

I am so scared that my chance at a family will be stopped when the same result (budget adjustments) could be made by reducing, say the baby bonus, by $50.

....and it's not just a female thing - men suffer infertility too and it's just as heartbreaking. My hubby thinks that Abbott should get on his bike and leave the cycling to us.

All the best,


Ratty
TTC#1/ICSI #4
10 Embryos over 5 Transfers
Monitoring,Lap,Endometrial Biopsy and D&C 3 May 05
1 x blastocyst in the fridge

Hello

I've had a request by a member that this topic be removed from Hot Topic. This member is concerned that this subject is too hurtful to be discussed here in an open forum such as Hot Topic.

This topic of discussion was placed here mainly because it was thought that members of the Assisted Conception forum wanted it here.

Please email me if you feel it should be removed. The Hot Topic can be replaced if need be.

Anni
anni@essentialbaby.com.au

It saddens me that those who have children, do not see the need to have IVF readily available for those of us who do. Particularly those with a medical condition, that makes it the only option.

My husband wrote this letter to the powers that be and maybe those that agree with the cuts, will understand a little more, the danger in cutting these funds and what it means to women on IVF if they do and to the goverment pocket.

If your children were taken away, can you imagine the emptyness of how it would feel to live everyday after that. This is what people on the journey of IVF feel everytime, they sniff, take injections, have surgeries, find out they are not pregnant, find out they are pregnant and then miscarry, when mothers day, christmas, birthdays, seeing mothers pregnant and mother's with children - it is with you're every move.

Just for a second think those thoughts...and then imagine the pain, before you jump to take away the only thing that can remove that pain.

On another note - for the last 13 years (I am 38), I haven't claimed childcare payments, haven't put my child in a public school, or used the health system for children. I pay private health insurance and the medicare levy haven't bought new clothes in over 12 months due to medical bills. Isn't it fair, that I get back some of the taxpayers dollars for my health as well?

I do not believe this topic should be removed. I only hope that it will make those understand who have not been through this, the pain that infertility causes and why we should get a chance too.

****************************************************

I'm distressed by the fact that the vast majority of statements from Messrs Abbot and Costello (Who's on first?) as well as several other opinion stories regarding proposed budget changes in the regarding IVF funding. These seem to be focussing on over 42's which is further end of the fertility range.

What seems to be getting downplayed is the limits to number of financed cycles for under 42's to 3 per year.
From information provided to us (my wife and I) by the fertility clinic my wife and I are going through on average 5-6 cycles are required.

I'm distressed by the fact that the figures originally cited by Abbot, which were admitted to be based on incorrect assumptions from information provided by

From : http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-...l?oneclick=true
"After the IVF plan was leaked to the media, Health Minister Tony Abbott's office refused to comment. But the following day, his PR officer released "factual information" to selected journalists through email. The release claimed the average number of IVF cycles for a woman to have a baby was three and that 90 per cent of women had three or fewer cycles a year. This information was not attributed to any medical authority. The press officer said the figures were based on the number of Medicare claims made per year. She admitted the use of the figures had involved a leap of logic. Just because a woman stops claiming Medicare rebates after three cycles, it does not mean she has had a baby. She may just have stopped using IVF."



Cycle One: Keeping in mind that for medically sound safety reasons the first cycle is often a lower dose of the drugs required and more often than not results in a cancelled cycle as not enough eggs are produced.

Strike one, erring on medical safety of the patient. (Attempting to prevent hyper stimulation).

Cycle Two: May also be a bust for the same reason, the dosage is increased in an attempt to find the 'right' amount required for the INDIVIDUAL patient.

Strike two, still erring on the side of medical safety of the patient.

Cycle Three: Drugs are right, eggs are harvested through a 'voluntary' procedure of having a needle retrieve the eggs. The eggs are fertilized. Another 'voluntary' procedure returning a fertilized egg.

The doctors and clinics tend to have a preference of only implanting one embryo to reduce risks involved with multiple births.

Strike Three - One embryo goes in but fails to implant.

Currently with no limits to attempts funding supported by Medicare (NOT FULLY FUNDED) cycles.
Cycles Four, maybe Five, maybe Six. Drugs are right, egg(s) are fertilized and implanted hopefully somewhere in here one 'takes' and nine months later, hopefully, a live birth.

Done responsibly with patient safety first and foremost.

With limited cycles.
PP's (Potential parents) may push their doctor(s) for higher drug dosages on first cycle.
Added risk of hyper stimulation (requiring hospital treatment and sometimes DEATH to the mother).
PP's (Potential parents) may push their doctor(s) to have several embryo's implanted to increase the chance of one implanting successfully.

Added risk of multiple birth, gestational diabetes due to multiple pregnancy, increased risks at birth (possibly mitigated by caesarean - again requiring surgical intervention and more hospital time).


A lot of people quit after three cycles, these are times of high hopes, hopes which are often dashed first cycle through cancellation from not enough eggs (the drugs aren't fun on even lower levels).

After a cycle with eggs retrieved becoming 'bust' cycle without a pregnancy, hopes are dashed again. Often a third cycle is all that can be handled emotionally and physically.

I have never had to go through IVF, although AIH was suggested after 2.5 years of trying, and I am totally against these cuts. I have a gf going through IVF atm (she just got a BFN on her first cycle) and it is heartbreaking to watch what she is going through. The injections she has to give to herself as her DH faints at the sight of blood. She has chronic back pain ( as my aunt had), she is really moody and snappy, is pale and looks a bit gaunt and is suffereing from migrains which she has never had before. It is definately not the walk in the park the govt is making it out to be. It's not something you do on a whim, but something that is a full lifestyle choice and that you seriously have to consider. It affects every aspect of your life, and at the end of it you may not be guaranteed the baby that you ache for. Do you think if one if the pollies daughters or wives had to go through IVF they'd cut the funding? Hell no, they'd probably increase the IVF funding.
I'd happily give up $50 from my baby bonus to help someone have a child, I mean, what is $50 compared to giving someone a lifetime of happiness.
And what is it with it always being referred to as the woman infertility probs!?!?! In 30-50% of cases it is the mans infertility that causes women to have IVF! It is a tow person problem not just the woman's!!!
Oh, and thanks for all the info about IVF, it's given me more of an insite into what you ladies have to go through.

Cheers
Vanessa

Hi Megan, welcome to the discussion.



This is certainly the most unusual reason I've heard from someone who is in favour of the cutbacks.

If you read the previous discussion you will see how the cutbacks would actually probably increase multiple births even more. This is because if we are faced with limitations on how many subsidised cycles we can do, there will be more pressure on us as women to transfer more embryos in the cycles we are allowed in order to increase our chances of pregnancy.

Currently there is a strong culture in the Australian IVF field of only transfering one embryo for those who have a good chance of getting pregnant. This culture would almost certainly go if the cutbacks are allowed to go ahead. In America IVF is extremely expensive and as a result many women transfer up to 5 embryos in one cycle!

So if you are in favour of your twins getting special government assistance it would be better for you to support us!

This is why the Australian Medical Association and the National Association of Specialist Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (NASOG) both strongly oppose the proposed government cuts. In fact multiple births were higher several years ago when women were only allowed a total of 6 cycles under medicare. Under the current system they have come down.

Even if your argument was true there is no guarantee that the government would bring back special assistance for twins.

Rachael

I was listening to the radio the other day, and one
guy who used to work in IVF said that he thought
the reason that they wanted to cut funding was
because a side effect would be that there would be
less embryo's available for stem cell research.
that the same people who were against stem cell
research were backing the cuts.

Another guy said that by limiting the try's for over
42yo's the government was saving such a small
amount to be negligent, that it would not make a
dent in the over all budget, and there fore didn't
make budgetory sense.

I say that if this is a democracy, why does the
government get to make these decisions without
the people's agreement.

I'd rather give up my baby bonus if it means that
one woman gets to hold a miracle baby in her
arms.

I can understand why some might want this topic removed from the open forum ... It's great to see there are some who are taking a genuine interest in learning more about both sides of the debate.

I'm pregnant with our 2nd baby, both of which were conceived through IVF as a result of female and severe male factor infertilities. There's no way we could have ever had these children without the assistance of IVF.

Although the medicare system gave us back some of the cost of our cycles, we were still out of pocket by roughly $4k each time. I gave up trying to keep track of all the bills. Under the saftey net we got back an additional $1k on our last cycle (which resulted in a pregnancy). I couldn't care less if IVF was removed from the saftey net, but I do object to the proposed cut backs.

We were fortunate to have savings (which were part of savings for a house deposit) and were able to afford these out of pocket expenses. Many couples simply can't. Certainly now that we have 1 child and one on the way and mortgage repayments I'm not sure how will will afford to be able to do it all over again - we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it, but it saddens me to think that my dream of a family may be cut short due to financial constraints.

We were also fortunate enough to discover our infertility early (my DH is 31 and I am 28) and were lucky that we responded well to the treatment. Others aren't so lucky, don't find the partner with whom they want to have a family until their 30s, or don't respond to the drugs - should they be punished becuase of this - I don't believe so.

Megan - I think I'm still in shock after reading your post. As Rachael said, that has to be the most unusual reason given by someone in favour of the cutbacks and I second what she has said regarding the twin birth rate as a result of IVF.

We made a decision when we first started down the IVF road that we would only have 1 embryo transferred at a time. Our Doctor actively encouraged us to do this, as do many doctors who currently consult in the field of IVF. It's recognised that technology has improved in recent times and the IVF community also recognises the strain placed on NICU units by the increased risk of premmie deliveries of twin pregnancies.




I'm sure there were a lot of other benefits provided by the government in 1989 which are no longer provided today, I'm sure these aren't as a result of funding to IVF.




How have you come to this conclusion? What evidence is there to suggest that a woman pregnant with twins through IVF has any greater chance of delivering her babies early than a woman who conceived twins naturally?

I am of the belief that these cuts represent something more sinister than budget savings. They represent a government who is willing to rationalise health services and have chosen IVF as the first step on this dangerous road due to its divisive nature. The debate over IVF causes people to forget that the government is going back on its word and meddling in our health care system. It will be a sad day indeed if we end up with a health system where only the very rich can afford access to medical care.

As for multi births.....by creating a limit it actually
encourages more women to put back more
embryos (2 or 3) than single embies. Because in
the end your trying to make use of the cycle.

I'm like Michelle and Early ovarain failure girl and
personally I am still waiting for donor cycles to be
covered. So IVF girls if your still letter writing.....you
can point this out as well.

As for the cost of the cycle one person (wendy??)
mentioned it was really close to $8,000 per
cycle.......yep it is maybe even closer to $10
grand.....becuase the PBS system is linked with
medicare that's where a real huge hidden cost
comes in. It's just that we don't see that side
becuase the PBS have in general already paid it.

I know in the last year I have come close to
spending $15,000 to $20,000 on ED cycles.

Jacinta

This girl is doing
IVF with ED
x 3 pervious ED's
5 neg transfers
(using 8 embies...some 1
some 2 embie transfers)
Starting soon with PROVEN
known ED and her family