Equity in use and financing of assisted reproductive technologies: Does income matter?

This study estimates inequity for a relatively low frequency-of-use and expensive health service, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Australia, that nevertheless has health and well-being related consequences. Although the universal healthcare system provides rebates, a policy to put a monetary cap was introduced in 2010, thereby increasing the co-payments for consumers. These government co-financing decisions include a trade-off between subsidising ART for the wealthy and prioritising insurance for low-income households. Such decisions require careful consideration since they may have profound equity implications. This study produces empirical evidence on inequity in the use and financing of ARTs, using linked administrative data from the years before the policy change, 2006, 2009 and after the policy change, 2012. The results indicate that there is pro-rich inequity in the use of ARTs, which decreases post-policy change and the financing of ART is regressive for the year 2009 pre-policy change and is less regressive after the policy change.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Economics & Human Biology
Published
2025-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2025.101491
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Healthcare Systems and Reforms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.42

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Equity in use and financing of assisted reproductive technologies: Does income matter?

Brenda Gannon, Luke B. Connelly, Gita D. Mishra, Aarushi Dhingra
2 citations
Economics & Human Biology
Healthcare Systems and Reforms
4.42
article

Equity in use and financing of assisted reproductive technologies: Does income matter?

Brenda Gannon, Luke B. Connelly, Gita D. Mishra, Aarushi Dhingra
article en
2 citations

Abstract

This study estimates inequity for a relatively low frequency-of-use and expensive health service, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Australia, that nevertheless has health and well-being related consequences. Although the universal healthcare system provides rebates, a policy to put a monetary cap was introduced in 2010, thereby increasing the co-payments for consumers. These government co-financing decisions include a trade-off between subsidising ART for the wealthy and prioritising insurance for low-income households. Such decisions require careful consideration since they may have profound equity implications. This study produces empirical evidence on inequity in the use and financing of ARTs, using linked administrative data from the years before the policy change, 2006, 2009 and after the policy change, 2012. The results indicate that there is pro-rich inequity in the use of ARTs, which decreases post-policy change and the financing of ART is regressive for the year 2009 pre-policy change and is less regressive after the policy change.

Economics & Human BiologyVol. 57
Queensland University of Technology (AU), The University of Queensland (AU), University of Bologna (IT)
National Health and Medical Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Healthcare Systems and Reforms
4.42
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.

Equity in use and financing of assisted reproductive technologies: Does income matter? — Brenda Gannon, Luke B. Connelly, et al. · Economics & Human Biology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS