Subscribe to RSS
![](/products/assets/desktop/img/oa-logo.png)
DOI: 10.1055/a-0749-9103
Can a University Reproductive Medicine Centre Be Financed Under the Pre-Existing General Conditions in Germany?
Article in several languages: English | deutschPublication History
received 31 July 2018
revised 16 September 2018
accepted 24 September 2018
Publication Date:
17 January 2019 (online)
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/gebfra/201901/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-a-0749-9103_gf7499103_en-1.jpg)
Abstract
Background Reduced resources for financing healthcare services are available to the German health system. For this reason, demographic development represents one of the greatest challenges for the German health system. Reproductive medicine can offer potential solutions and counteract the ageing of the population through an increase in the birth rate. Most reproductive medical treatments take place in private centres. For the development of new, innovative therapeutic approaches, continuing education and scientific advancement, university centres are essential.
Materials and Methods Using multistage contribution margin accounting, IVF and ICSI treatments at the University Fertility Centre Franken (UFF) were investigated in 2012. The cost situation from the perspective of the patient couple and the statutory payer were contrasted with the cost and revenue situation of the service provider as a university reproductive medicine centre.
Results The costs for the patient couple for an IVF treatment cycle were 538.71 € and for an ICSI cycle, 700.07 €. For the payer, the costs, including the university flat rate (194.80 €) to be paid, amount to 733.51 € for an IVF cycle and 894.87 € for an ICSI cycle. The payments of the patient couple and the payer were added and this yielded total costs of 1272.22 € and 1594.94 €. The University Fertility Centre Franken, as a part of the Department of Gynaecology of the Erlangen University Hospital, incurred costs of 1364.47 € for an IVF treatment cycle and 1423.48 € for an ICSI treatment cycle. In addition, the OB/GYN clinic had to pay the university hospital a flat general expense rate of 14.9% of the income. There was thus a loss for the department of gynaecology of 281.81 € for an IVF cycle and 66.19 € for an ICSI cycle.
Discussion From the perspective of a university reproductive medicine centre, IVF and ICSI treatments currently cannot be performed in a cost-covering manner. At the same time, a reproductive medicine treatment cycle represents a significant financial burden on the patient couple due to only partial cost coverage by most statutory health insurance funds. This therefore demonstrates a need for action in health policy to revise and, in the interest of the patient couples, reproductive medicine centres and, not least of all, in the interest of society, to improve existing cost absorption policies and thus also benefit from this as a society over the long term.
-
References/Literatur
- 1 Lux MP, Beckmann MW. Klinische Ökonomie in der gynäkologischen Onkologie. FHA 2008; 2: 35-41
- 2 Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. Gesundheitsausgaben im internationalen Vergleich Kapitel 5.4 [Gesundheit in Deutschland, 2006], 2006. Online: http://www.gbe-bund.de/gbe10/abrechnung.prc_abr_test_logon?p_uid=gastg&p_aid=&p_knoten=FID&p_sprache=D&p_suchstring=10918 Gesundheitsausgabe; last access: 20.07.2017
- 3 Interpharma. Höhere Gesundheitsausgaben in den Industriestaaten. Interpharma 2015. Online: http://www.interpharma.ch/fakten-statistiken/1873-hoehere-gesundheitsausgaben-industriestaaten last access: 20.07.2017
- 4 Robert Koch-Institut. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. Gemeinsam getragen von RKI und Destatis. Gesundheit in Deutschland. Berlin: Robert Koch-Institut; 2015
- 5 Kentenich H, Sibold C, Tandler-Schneider A. [In vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: Current medical aspects]. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz 2013; 56: 1653-1661
- 6 Richtlinien des Bundesauschusses der Ärzte und Krankenkassen über ärztliche Maßnahmen zur künstliche Befruchtung („Richtlinien über künstliche Befruchtung“), in der Fassung vom 14. August 1990 – veröffentlicht im Bundesarbeitsblatt 1990, Nr.12 zuletzt geändert am 16. März 2017, veröffentlicht im Bundesanzeiger BAnz AT 01.06.2017 B4, in Kraft getreten am 2. Juni 2017. Online: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-1402/KB-RL_2017-03-16_iK-2017-06-02.pdf last access: 17.10.2018
- 7 Huppelschoten AG, Verkerk EW, Appleby J. et al. The monetary value of patient-centred care: results from a discrete choice experiment in Dutch fertility care. Hum Reprod 2014; 29: 1712-1720
- 8 Statistisches Bundesamt. Geburtenzahl durch demografische Entwicklung vorgezeichnet. 2013. Online: https://www.destatis.de/bevoelkerungspyramide/%23!y=1960&v=2&o=2060v1 last access: 01.08.2017
- 9 Craig BM, Donovan KA, Fraenkel L. et al. A generation of childless women: lessons from the United States. Womens Health Issues 2014; 24: e21-e27
- 10 Bühler K. D·I·R Annual 2012 of the German National IVF Registry. J Reprod Med Endocrinol 2013; 10: 1-47
- 11 Graumann M, Schmidt-Graumann A. Rechnungslegung und Finanzierung der Krankenhäuser, Leitfaden für die Rechnungslegung und Finanzierung der Krankenhäuser, Leitfaden für Rechnungslegung, Beratung und Prüfung, Alle Teilbereiche des Rechnungswesens der Krankenhäuser, Integrierende Darstellung juristischer und betriebswirtschaftlicher Aspekte, Mit zahlreichen Fallbeispielen und Abbildungen. Hamm: Neue Wirtschafts-Briefe GmbH & Co. KG; 2007
- 12 [Anonym] Deutsches IVF Register-Jahrbuch 2012. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol 2013; 10: 1-47
- 13 Lux MP, Fasching PA, Loehberg CR. et al. Health Services Research and Health Economy – Quality Care Training in Gynaecology, with Focus On Gynaecological Oncology. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 71: 1046-1055
- 14 Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Why Prospectively Randomized Clinical Trials Have Been Rare in Reproductive Medicine and Will Remain So?. Reprod Sci 2016; 23: 6-10
- 15 Frauenklinik des Universitätsklinikum Erlangen. Erstmals Kind trotz Unfruchtbarkeit nach Brustkrebstherapie – Eierstockgewebe retransplantiert. 2012. Online: http://www.frauenklinik.uk-erlangen.de/aktuelles/nachrichten/detail/rstmals-kind-trotz-unfruchtbarkeit-nach-brustkrebstherapie-eierstockgewebe-retransplantiert/ last access: 30.10.2016
- 16 Dittrich R, Kliesch S, Schuring A. et al. Fertility Preservation for Patients with Malignant Disease. Guideline of the DGGG, DGU and DGRM (S2 k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/082, November 2017) – Recommendations and Statements for Girls and Women. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2018; 78: 567-584
- 17 Guenther V, Alkatout I, Junkers W. et al. Fertility Preservation in Female Patients with Breast Cancer – a Current Overview. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2017; 77: 1088-1094
- 18 Stachs A, Hartmann S, Gerber B. Preservation of Fertility or Ovarian Function in Patients with Breast Cancer or Gynecologic and Internal Malignancies. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2017; 77: 861-869
- 19 Campbell M, Sahin-Hodoglugil NN, Potts M. Barriers to fertility regulation: a review of the literature. Stud Fam Plann 2006; 37: 87-98
- 20 Domar AD, Rooney K, Hacker MR. et al. Burden of care is the primary reason why insured women terminate in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 1121-1126
- 21 Kooperation international. HFEA Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2015. Online: http://www.kooperation-international.de/detail/info/hfea-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-authority.html last access: 15.08.2017
- 22 Kolata G. In vitro fertilization goes commercial. There could be as many as 200 clinics operating within a year; who should pay for the procedures, and how should they be monitored?. Science 1983; 221: 1160-1161