Real World Fertility Evaluation & Care Prior to In Vitro Fertilization: Care Gaps That Could be Addressed by Restorative Reproductive Medicine

A Retrospective 5-Million Patient Claims Based Care-Gap Analysis

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate adherence to published American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and American Urological Association (AUA) infertility evaluation and treatment recommendations among commercially insured infertility patients who subsequently underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF), and to assess whether observed care gaps support the need for a restorative reproductive medical framework.

Methods: A retrospective claims-based analysis was performed using MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounter Data between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2024. Approximately five million commercially insured members were evaluated. Patients with infertility-related diagnoses who subsequently underwent IVF were identified. Claims were analyzed for evidence of selected diagnostic testing, medical treatment, or surgical interventions recommended by ASRM or AUA/ASRM guidance for specific infertility-related diagnoses before IVF initiation. Cumulative adherence rates were assessed up to nine months following initial infertility diagnosis and compared with the timing of initiating IVF.

Results: IVF initiation started early and consistently preceded completion of most recommended evaluations and treatments. By 3 months, the proportion of patients with IVF initiation ranged from 28% to 39% across different infertility-related diagnoses, while adherence to most recommended interventions remained low. Overall, by 9 months, IVF utilization had reached 70–85%, while many recommended evaluations and treatments remained below 40% adherence, with several interventions remaining below 15%. Observed care gaps (percentage of patients receiving IVF prior to other evaluation or treatment recommendations) ranged from approximately 13% to 78% for most recommended evaluations and treatments, with several measures demonstrating gaps over 50% of patients.

Discussion: These findings suggest substantial divergence between published infertility-care recommendations and observed practice patterns. From the perspective of restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), the gaps are clinically important because many recommended steps are directed toward identifying, correcting, restoring, or preserving reproductive function and anatomy before offering or initiating IVF treatment. Limitations to these data include lack of individualized patient medical data, preferences, or circumstances, and not capturing any treatment that was not reimbursed by commercial insurance (i.e., any cash payment for services). In addition, the recommendations assessed have variable levels of underlying evidence, and likely vary in the level of their acceptance among practicing clinicians.

Conclusions: Many commercially insured infertility patients progressed to IVF without documented evidence of diagnostic evaluation or therapeutic interventions recommended in ASRM and AUA/ASRM guidance. These findings raise important questions regarding the implementation of adequate evaluation before IVF and the extent to which patients receive meaningful opportunities for diagnosis-directed treatment of potentially reversible causes of infertility. The findings further suggest an important role for RRM as a quality-of-care framework focused on comprehensive evaluation, correction of underlying dysfunction, preservation of reproductive anatomy and physiology, and optimization of patient-centered fertility care, prior to considering IVF.