 Equity in use and financing of assisted reproductive technologies: Does income matter?Aarushi Dhingra, Brenda Gannon, Luke Connelly and Gita Mishra Economics & Human Biology, 2025, vol. 57, issue C 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. Keywords: Inequity; Assisted reproductive technology; Out-of-pocket cost; Medicare (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ehbiol:v:57:y:2025:i:c:s1570677x25000243 DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2025.101491 Access Statistics for this article Economics & Human Biology is currently edited by J. Komlos, Inas R Kelly and Joerg Baten More articles in Economics & Human Biology from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.