This study estimates inequity for a relatively low frequency-of-use and expensive health service, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Australia, that nevertheless has health and well-being related consequences. Although the universal healthcare system provides rebates, a policy to put a monetary cap was introduced in 2010, thereby increasing the co-payments for consumers. These government co-financing decisions include a trade-off between subsidising ART for the wealthy and prioritising insurance for low-income households. Such decisions require careful consideration since they may have profound equity implications. This study produces empirical evidence on inequity in the use and financing of ARTs, using linked administrative data from the years before the policy change, 2006, 2009 and after the policy change, 2012. The results indicate that there is pro-rich inequity in the use of ARTs, which decreases post-policy change and the financing of ART is regressive for the year 2009 pre-policy change and is less regressive after the policy change.

Dhingra, A., Gannon, B., Connelly, L., Mishra, G. (2025). Equity in use and financing of assisted reproductive technologies: Does income matter?. ECONOMICS AND HUMAN BIOLOGY, 57, 1-17 [10.1016/j.ehb.2025.101491].

Equity in use and financing of assisted reproductive technologies: Does income matter?

Connelly L.;
2025

Abstract

This study estimates inequity for a relatively low frequency-of-use and expensive health service, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Australia, that nevertheless has health and well-being related consequences. Although the universal healthcare system provides rebates, a policy to put a monetary cap was introduced in 2010, thereby increasing the co-payments for consumers. These government co-financing decisions include a trade-off between subsidising ART for the wealthy and prioritising insurance for low-income households. Such decisions require careful consideration since they may have profound equity implications. This study produces empirical evidence on inequity in the use and financing of ARTs, using linked administrative data from the years before the policy change, 2006, 2009 and after the policy change, 2012. The results indicate that there is pro-rich inequity in the use of ARTs, which decreases post-policy change and the financing of ART is regressive for the year 2009 pre-policy change and is less regressive after the policy change.
2025
Dhingra, A., Gannon, B., Connelly, L., Mishra, G. (2025). Equity in use and financing of assisted reproductive technologies: Does income matter?. ECONOMICS AND HUMAN BIOLOGY, 57, 1-17 [10.1016/j.ehb.2025.101491].
Dhingra, A.; Gannon, B.; Connelly, L.; Mishra, G.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S1570677X25000243-main.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale / Version Of Record
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 2.27 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.27 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
1-s2.0-S1570677X25000243-mmc1.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 517.87 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
517.87 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/1019573
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact