Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were (1) To investigate the availability of NHS funded in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for individuals affected by Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH) from all Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) across England and (2) To assess the ethical implications of piecemeal funding for those with MRKH. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study containing both quantitative and qualitative data. We filed freedom of information (FOI) act requests on 01/06/2023 for all 42 ICBs across England via secure email. SETTING: The study focused on England. PARTICIPANTS: All 42 ICBs across England were contacted. OUTCOME MEASURES: The FOI requests asked for information concerning the provision of funded IVF for uterine factor infertility, and if this included individuals with MRKH. Where assistance was available, we recorded what it comprised along the IVF cycle. If IVF was not offered, we recorded the rationale provided by the ICB. RESULTS: Responses were received from all 42 ICBs across England. Seven stated that they would fund IVF and cryopreservation of embryos to women with MRKH and other absolute uterine factor infertility diagnoses (NHS Humber and North Yorkshire, NHS Dorset, NHS Devon, NHS Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxford and Berkshire, NHS South Yorkshire and NHS West Yorkshire). However, the number of cycles, the length of cryopreservation and whether they would fund embryo transfer into a surrogate differed between ICBs.Of the remainder, three (NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, NHS Greater Manchester and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight) described some provision of fertility preservation (cryopreservation of oocytes or embryos) for women with uterine factor infertility, two of whom suggested their policy may include women with MRKH (NHS Greater Manchester and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight). Two ICBs (NHS Gloucester and NHS Bedford, Luton and Milton Keynes) explained that individual funding applications would be considered when made by clinicians on the patient's behalf, but no information was provided on how many times requests had been made and granted. The remaining 30 ICBs explained that no part of a surrogacy pregnancy would be funded, owing to concerns around commercial surrogacy, which is illegal in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: This work has revealed that only a small proportion of ICBs (7/42, 17%) treat women with MRKH like any other woman applying for NHS fertility treatment. The study revealed that decisions by ICBs not to fund IVF treatments based on concerns about commercial surrogacy create significant inequities. It unfairly penalises individuals with MRKH who require surrogacy as part of their fertility treatment. These individuals face a unique set of reproductive challenges, and denying them access to NHS-funded IVF treatments exacerbates existing inequalities. Furthermore, if individuals with MRKH accept that the expenses of the surrogate will be met by them rather than the ICB, it is unjustifiable to deny them the IVF component of the treatment if they meet all the other criteria for eligibility. Moreover, the fact that some ICBs do fund IVF for individuals with MRKH indicates that legal concerns regarding surrogacy are unfounded and inconsistently applied. This discrepancy highlights the need for a standardised approach that ensures equitable access to fertility treatments across all regions.