Is ART utilization the best indicator of access to fertility care?

While we agree with many of the points stated by Dyer et al. in their recent commentary inRBMO(Dyer et al., 2020), we believe their conclusions are focused too narrowly. Limiting the indicator of access to, and utilization of, fertility treatment to assisted reproductive technology (ART) excludes information that is of key importance for subfertile couples, populations, and policymakers. Even in countries where access to ART is widespread, there are more births in subfertile couples through non-ART treatment than through ART (Stanford et al., 2016).

While ART is necessary for some couples to have a child, it is not required for many subfertile couples, and overuse of ART may potentially be harmful (Annual Capri Workshop Group 2019). Focusing solely on ART as a metric may unnecessarily encourage overutilization (Boltz et al., 2017).

We believe the focus on ART and its outcomes for national and international registries of fertility treatment has stunted the scientific development of non-ART treatments, including those which seek to address underlying health conditions (Boyle et al., 2018). There is a pressing and critical need to develop robust registries of couples treated with non-ART treatments, for the improvement of outcomes and the promotion of robust consumer choice. (Spandorfer, 2020).

The ultimate measure of access to fertility care should be determined by the proportion of those with a desire for fertility who achieve a healthy live birth, whether or not ART is required to do so (Mascarenhas et al., 2012). Therefore, notwithstanding methodologic challenges, registry assessments should be developed and supported for all fertility treatments, not only ART.