Subscribe via E-Mail

Get all of our news delivered fresh to your inbox every morning! Just tell us your name and where to send it using the form below.

PS – We hate spam too. We don’t sell or share our list with anyone, and we never send commercial email.




luxe
Friday, January 29th, 2016  |  USD: Buy 531.29 / Sell 543.92
20 years

Public health estimates it will spend more than $100k per IVF patient

Email this page

(ICR Archive)

(ICR Archive)

September 7th, 2015 (ICR News) The Costa Rican public health and social security administration known as CCSS or La Caja estimates that it will spend some ¢60 million (about US $112,000) per patient that undergoes in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment between the time that fertility treatment is begun and a baby is successfully born, Health Minister Fernando Llorca told Amelia Rueda.

 

The figure does not include up-front investments that will be required in laboratory equipment and the hiring and training of specialists to perform the procedure.

 

The draft decree issued by the Solis administration last week that will authorize IVF to take place in the country does not include pricing regulation, so private clinics and private hospitals will be free to determine their own pricing for the procedure.

 

President Luis Guillermo Solis is expected to sign the decree no later than Friday.  CCSS will then have a maximum of two years to begin providing the service under the country’s public healthcare scheme.

 

In-vitro fertilization had been banned in Costa Rica since 2000 under pressure from the Catholic Church, and has long been the only country in the Americas to ban the reproductive procedure.

 

costa rica news

ATTENTION: If you are seeing this message,


Advertisement


Get our news delivered fresh to your inbox every morning.

Click here to subscribe to our email list. We hate spam too and never send commercial email.

Like us on Facebook and receive our news in your timeline

  • Ken Morris

    Gosh, this adds a new dimension. I was all for allowing IVF as a person’s right (that the Catholic Church shouldn’t be allowed to restrict) but I’m not keen on making what strikes me as a luxury procedure a publicly-financed right–and especially don’t like it at this price tag.

    Can’t IVF be made a right, sort of like plastic surgery, without the Caja having to pay for it (as it doesn’t generally pay for plastic surgery)?

    This is after all a public health system that struggles with too few resources to attend adequately to sick people. Burdening it with the obligation of paying for IVF doesn’t seem right.

    • Yeims

      I agree, the extremely high price really de-prioritizes the idea, and especially since we are entering — or soon will be — a phase of depopulation.

    • mhogan

      You just showed your hypocritical side. jajaja! Your original “liberal” view of allowing for a person’s right for IVF (obviously at taxpayer expense) until you found it how much it would cost per procedure reminds me of the joke where a man asks a woman if she would sleep with him for $10,000 and she said “yes”; then when asked if she would sleep with him for $10, she indignantly replied: “What do you take me for? A prostitute?” He says: “We’ve already established that fact, now all we’re doing is haggling over the price.” So, Ken, you’ve put a price on a woman’s right to have IVF paid for by the State and the price is too high, I guess, for your palate. How are you different from the prostitute?

      • Ken Morris

        Hypocritical because I make a distinction between a person’s right to something and the obligation of the state to pay for it?

        Despite what you might think about my or anyone else’s “liberal” views, there is often a distinction between a right and the obligation for the state to pay for it.

        I for example favor the right of (most) citizens to own a gun, but don’t favor the state buying the guns for them.

        And as it happens, there are lots of medical things that the Caja won’t pay for, including for example Viagra. I favor the Caja restricting the services it provides on the taxpayer’s dime, even as I favor the right of people to buy those services.

        I was unaware until I read this article that legalizing IVF included the provision that the Caja pays for it. Once I was made aware, I opposed the public payment, though still believe that IVF ought to be legal.

        I fail to find the inconsistency you do.

        • mhogan

          What’s the “new dimension” wherein you” [were] all for allowing IVF as a person’s right … but I’m not keen on making what strikes me as a luxury procedure a publicly-financed right–and especially don’t like it at this price tag” So, that implies you would be for it as a publicly-financed right if the price tag were not so high? So, I’m confused: so at one point you were “all for allowing” but now you “don’t like [the price tag}”.
          And yes, I agree there is a distinction between a right and the obligation for the state to pay for it but your first paragraph sends you wobbling on your liberal ass. Unlike you, my view is that the government should stay out of the issue altogether — neither make it a right nor pay for it. Once a right is given, it can never be revoked and the next obvious step is for the woman to INSIST on her right being paid by the State. Saw it happen before, will happen again. But the government should not take ANY POSITION but leave it as a decision between doctor and patient. Damn it’s hard being a libertarian trying to keep government out of bedrooms and medical matters when the new liberals only think of “rights”.

          • Ken Morris

            I’m afraid you’re reaching for a reason to castigate a phantom wobbly-ass liberal that isn’t there.

            Since you say that IVF is a decision that should be left up to “doctor and patient,” you too believe that IVF is a patient’s right. How are our opinions different, and why is the same opinion from me liberal while yours is libertarian?

            In context, IVF used to be illegal. We both I gather believe that was wrong. Making it legal makes it a right when it didn’t used to be. The issue is overturning a prohibition, not minting a right.

            And yes, as a practical matter, rights can be revoked. It happens all the time. People used to have the right to smoke indoors, now they don’t.

            I understand your concern that once a restriction on a right is removed, there are often clowns who take it to the next step and demand that the taxpapers pay for others to exercise these rights. In fact, according to this article, that’s what is already happening with IVF. My opinion is that this second public payment step doesn’t automatically follow from the initial step, and this needs to be stopped in the case of IVF. My impression is that we agree about this.

            If we want to go there, as a practical matter, yes, cost is a factor. It always is in the real world. If IVF could be performed free, I’d have no qualms about the Caja handling it. The more though it costs, the more qualms I have publicly financing it. The issue becomes balancing what’s nice to have against other things that are also nice to have with what’s affordable. Since the Caja currently doesn’t pay for Viagra or lots of less recreational medicines and procedures, I can’t see how it ought to pay for what I regard as the luxury and expensive procedure of IVF.

            But before you get on your high horse and tell me that this makes me a wobbly ass liberal prostitute, note that libertarians are just as sensitive to costs. They favor government providing the infrastructure necessary for a good business climate, but the fact is that governments can’t afford to build all the roads, bridges, seaports, and airports that businesses would like to have (even if they all would enhance the business climate). Libertarians must therefore also prioritize government spending based upon some assessment of the bang gotten for the buck. That they do so doesn’t make then whores in my book, although it might make them wobbly ass.

            My request is that you wait until I really do take a non-libertarian liberal position before you land into me. You will certainly have ample opportunities, since I have been know to take liberal positions. This though isn’t your opportunity. As much as I regret to say this, we actually agree that IVF ought to be a right that isn’t publicly funded.

  • Hardy Hansen

    100% agree with Ken – no reason for the CCSS to pay for this procedure.

Popular Content