Three days ago, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at making in vitro fertilization (IVF) more affordable and accessible. His reasoning? To help American families struggling with infertility—a noble intention on the surface. But what if the policies that sound compassionate at first glance actually create more problems than they solve?
Let’s break it down.
1. What the Executive Order Says
The executive order acknowledges that about one in seven couples struggle to conceive and that IVF—costing between $12,000 and $25,000 per cycle—can be financially out of reach. The goal is to drastically lower costs by cutting regulatory “burdens” and encouraging insurers to reduce out-of-pocket expenses. Within 90 days, the President’s Domestic Policy team will submit recommendations to protect access to IVF and make it more affordable.
Sounds helpful, right? Who wouldn’t want to ease the pain of infertility? But here’s the issue: IVF doesn’t just come with a hefty price tag for patients—it drives up healthcare costs for everyone.
2. The Real Cost of IVF (And Why You’re Paying for It)
Lowering out-of-pocket costs for IVF sounds great—until you realize who foots the bill: taxpayers and insured Americans. By mandating insurance coverage or pushing subsidies, the government effectively shifts costs onto the broader public. IVF isn’t just expensive—it’s inefficient.
According to a comprehensive report comparing IVF to Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM), IVF not only costs more but also treats symptoms rather than addressing underlying causes of infertility. RRM, on the other hand, works with the woman’s natural cycle to restore reproductive health, boasting similar or better success rates—at a fraction of the cost.
A study conducted in California found that the average cost of achieving a live birth through IVF was $61,000. In contrast a restorative reproductive a study on the cost and effectiveness of IVF versus Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) showed that successfully treating fertility to achieve natural conception averaged between $3,000 and $5,000.
Key takeaway: IVF is often a Band-Aid. RRM is a long-term solution.
So why isn’t the government incentivizing RRM instead? If the goal is to help families, shouldn’t we promote options that fix the problem without skyrocketing healthcare costs?
3. There’s a Better Way: Incentivize Ethical Alternatives
This executive order misses two major opportunities:
- Invest in Restorative Reproductive Medicine: RRM helps couples conceive naturally by treating conditions like endometriosis, PCOS, and hormonal imbalances. Cheaper. More effective. Healthier.
- Support Embryo Adoption: IVF creates surplus embryos—tiny human lives frozen indefinitely. Instead of expanding IVF access, we should promote embryo adoption, giving these embryos a chance at life while helping families longing for children.
Widening IVF access without addressing its ethical and financial downsides is like treating a broken leg with painkillers instead of a cast. Sure, you feel better—for now—but the underlying issue remains (and gets more expensive).
4. Final Thoughts
Infertility is heartbreaking. Families deserve compassion and real solutions—not short-term fixes that burden our healthcare system and lead to ethical dilemmas. Lowering IVF costs might look good on paper, but true family-building policies should prioritize affordability, effectiveness, and ethics.
If the government genuinely wants to help couples conceive, it should invest in solutions that heal, not just treat—and ensure that we aren’t creating problems downstream that cost us all.
Sincerely,
The Producer of Cradled in Glass
Sources:
- Executive Order—Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization | The American Presidency Project
- Restorative Reproductive Medicine: An Emerging New Treatment Process and a Prerequisite to Assisted Reproductive Technology for Treatment of Infertility
- Embryo Adoption Awareness Center: Adopter FAQs
- Embryo Donation Success Rates: What to Expect