The dilemma of social oocyte freezing: usage rate is too low to make it cost-effective.

Abstract

Delayed childbearing in affluent countries and the financial crisis of the Y-generation have contributed to the dramatic decline in birth rate. Social oocyte freezing (SOF) has fuelled the imagination of patients and doctors to offer it as a solution to single, presumably fertile, women to preserve their fertility potential by egg banking at an early age. Some are calling on governments to support large-scale 'fertility preservation', but is it cost-effective? Social oocyte freezing is effectively expensive insurance, where future utilization is unknown. Theoretical studies have suggested that SOF is only cost-effective with a usage rate of 50% or over, and when getting married is not set as a condition. Maximal possible utilization of frozen eggs, however, is much lower. Recent studies have found usage rates of 3.1-9.3%, which sets the cost of each extra live birth between $600,000 and 1,000,000. As IVF is being privatized and business-driven, it is hard for experts to decipher scientific- from business-oriented claims. The cost-effectiveness of SOF for individuals or society unclear. These facts place the burden of responsibility on the treating physician, who should inform patients about the true likelihood of using their eggs, the age at which to freeze and possible alternatives.