(244) MEDICAID COVERAGE OF INFERTILITY TREATMENTS

Abstract Introduction Infertility is experienced by 15% of couples, with up to 50% of cases related to male factors. Unfortunately, infertility treatments are expensive and infrequently covered by insurance, burdening patients and deterring access to care. However, Medicaid patients are even less likely to pursue treatments. Of 92 million Medicaid enrollees, 31 million are between the ages of 18 to 44, prime age for fertility intervention. However, transparency of Medicaid coverage of fertility interventions is low. Objective In this study, we evaluated Medicaid coverage status and physician reimbursement for the most common infertility-related interventions. Methods Physician fee schedules were accessed through state Medicaid websites for the year 2023. The fee schedules were searched for current procedural terminology (CPT) codes used for male infertility interventions. The Medicaid physician fee index was accessed for each state and linear regression analysis was performed to assess if state reimbursements were attributable to a tendency for that state to reimburse more for Medicaid services. Results Of the 50 US states analyzed, 49 publish accessible physician fee schedules. Tennessee requires patient claim data to be submitted before releasing fee schedules. No states offered reimbursement for microscopic testicular extraction of sperm thus requiring alternatives for coding, or the use of out-of-pocket billing. Certain procedures were covered by every state, such as testis biopsy, while others were rarely covered, such as vasovasostomy (table 1). Reimbursement patterns for several CPTs significantly varied based on the state physician fee index, although these were typically weak correlations (table 2). Conclusions Discrepancies in state coverage and reimbursement for fertility procedures is evident. Some of the discrepancies can be explained by state fee indexes, however the absence of clear methodology behind a state’s decision to cover fertility procedures and physician reimbursement rates both contribute to overall lack of transparency within Medicaid. This lack of transparency may be partially responsible for underutilization of infertility treatments in Medicaid patients. Disclosure No.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Published
2024-08-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae167.238
Primary Topic
Reproductive Health and Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

(244) MEDICAID COVERAGE OF INFERTILITY TREATMENTS

Amjad Alwaal, Kriti Jain, Eileen Gillan, Aleksandar Popovic
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Reproductive Health and Technologies
article

(244) MEDICAID COVERAGE OF INFERTILITY TREATMENTS

Amjad Alwaal, Kriti Jain, Eileen Gillan, Aleksandar Popovic
article en

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Infertility is experienced by 15% of couples, with up to 50% of cases related to male factors. Unfortunately, infertility treatments are expensive and infrequently covered by insurance, burdening patients and deterring access to care. However, Medicaid patients are even less likely to pursue treatments. Of 92 million Medicaid enrollees, 31 million are between the ages of 18 to 44, prime age for fertility intervention. However, transparency of Medicaid coverage of fertility interventions is low. Objective In this study, we evaluated Medicaid coverage status and physician reimbursement for the most common infertility-related interventions. Methods Physician fee schedules were accessed through state Medicaid websites for the year 2023. The fee schedules were searched for current procedural terminology (CPT) codes used for male infertility interventions. The Medicaid physician fee index was accessed for each state and linear regression analysis was performed to assess if state reimbursements were attributable to a tendency for that state to reimburse more for Medicaid services. Results Of the 50 US states analyzed, 49 publish accessible physician fee schedules. Tennessee requires patient claim data to be submitted before releasing fee schedules. No states offered reimbursement for microscopic testicular extraction of sperm thus requiring alternatives for coding, or the use of out-of-pocket billing. Certain procedures were covered by every state, such as testis biopsy, while others were rarely covered, such as vasovasostomy (table 1). Reimbursement patterns for several CPTs significantly varied based on the state physician fee index, although these were typically weak correlations (table 2). Conclusions Discrepancies in state coverage and reimbursement for fertility procedures is evident. Some of the discrepancies can be explained by state fee indexes, however the absence of clear methodology behind a state’s decision to cover fertility procedures and physician reimbursement rates both contribute to overall lack of transparency within Medicaid. This lack of transparency may be partially responsible for underutilization of infertility treatments in Medicaid patients. Disclosure No.

The Journal of Sexual MedicineVol. 21(Supplement_7)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Reproductive Health and Technologies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.