EC Gynaecology

Background: Advances in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) and private equity involvement are reshaping fertility care, presenting new ethical and economic challenges.

Objective and Rationale: This review examines the implications of public, private, and hybrid fertility clinic models, focusing on conflicts of interest and ethical concerns in the commercialization of fertility services.

Methods: Literature on fertility care models was synthesized, including reports from ESHRE, health registries, PubMed articles, and private equity publications.

Outcomes: Public clinics provide subsidized but basic services with long wait times. Private clinics, driven by profit, offer advanced treatments at higher costs, while hybrid models aim to balance accessibility and innovation. Private equity involvement promotes high-margin treatments, potentially compromising patient-centered care.

Wider Implications: The growth of the fertility industry requires balancing financial interests with ethical obligations to ensure evidence-based, compassionate care. Strengthened regulatory oversight is crucial to protect patient well-being and uphold clinical integrity.

 Keywords: Medically Assisted Reproduction (MAR); Fertility Care; Public, Private, and Hybrid Fertility

1. ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure Cimadomo D., et al. “ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure”. Human Reproduction Open 3 (2023): hoad023.
2. De Geyter C., et al. “20 years of the European IVF-monitoring Consortium registry: what have we learned? A comparison with registries from two other regions”. Human Reproduction 12 (2020): 2832-2849.
3. Tynkkynen LK and Vrangbæk K. “Comparing public and private providers: A scoping review of hospital services”. BMC Health Services Research 1 (2018): 141.
4. The Financial Times. "Fresenius sells Eugin Group to KKR" (2023).
5. Athey S and Garthwaite C. “Private equity investment in healthcare: An analysis of efficiency and outcomes”. Health Affairs3 (2017): 495-502.
6. Epstein AM. “How private equity affects innovation in healthcare: A mixed blessing”. New England Journal of Medicine4 (2018): 403-405.
7. Private Equity Wire (2024).
8. Patrizio P., et al. “The changing world of IVF: the pros and cons of new business models offering assisted reproductive technologies”. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2 (2022): 305-313.
9. Patrizio P., et al. “Fertility clinics and the commodification of assisted reproduction”. Fertility and Sterility3 (2022): 699-704.
10. The Lancet. “The fertility industry: profiting from vulnerability”. Lancet10449 (2024): 215.
11. Gleicher N., et al. “Worldwide decline of IVF birth rates and its probable causes”. Human Reproduction Open 3 (2019): hoz017.
12. Gleicher N., et al. “The impact of private equity ownership on medical practices: A cautionary tale”. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics7 (2019): 1395-1399.
13. Marta Seiz., et al. “Socioeconomic differences in access to and use of Medically Assisted Reproduction (MAR) in a context of increasing childlessness”. European Commission JRC Working Papers Series on Social Classes in the Digital Age 2023/03.
14. Fertility First UK, HFEA (2024).
15. Fertility First UK Category (2024).
16. HFEA 2022 (2024).
17. ESHRE Add-ons working group., et al. “Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine”. Human Reproduction11 (2023): 2062-2104.
18. SART Calculator (2024).
19. Agenas Monitoring Medical Devices (2024).
20. Vaiarelli A., et al. “Clinical and laboratory key performance indicators in IVF”. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 6 (2023): 1505-1515.
21. Success Rate (2024).
22. ART success rate.
23. Braff DL and Sanfilippo F. “The impact of private equity on healthcare quality and access”. Journal of Healthcare Management4 (2021): 256-260.
24. Frith L. “Ethical concerns in reproductive medicine: The role of private equity in assisted reproduction”. Bioethics 5 (2018): 289-298.
25. Lipworth W., et al. “The ethics of private equity in healthcare: Commercial interests in medicine”. Journal of Medical Ethics2 (2021): 113-117.
26. Nolte TN., et al. “Physicians' perspectives regarding private equity transactions in outpatient health care-a scoping review and qualitative analysis”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 23 (2022): 15480.
27. Ubel PA. “Private Equity Acquisition of Physician Practices—Looking for ethical guidance from professional societies”. JAMA Health Forum 9 (2024): e242767.
28. Walsh MN. “Physician autonomy and quality care in a profit-driven healthcare system”. American Journal of Managed Care10 (2018): e327-e332.
29. Busam KJ and Shah A. “Innovation in private equity-backed healthcare practices: Benefits and challenges”. Journal of Healthcare Innovation1 (2023): 12-19.
30. Bulletti C. “The New Phenotype of a Successful Medical Career. Something is Wrong?” Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research4 (2023).
31. Conroy G. “Surge in number of ‘extremely productive’ authors concerns scientists”. Nature7993 (2024): 14-15.
32. Lavery S., et al. “From Rockstar doctors to bland brands: The changing face of assisted reproduction”. Fertility and Sterility 5 (2023): 955-956.
33. Gameiro S., et al. “Preparing patients for unsuccessful outcomes: Clinical implications”. Human Reproduction 1 (2024): 14-20.
34. https://www.sart.org/professionals-and-providers/join-sart/
35. Gill P., et al. “Does recurrent implantation failure exist? Prevalence and outcomes of five consecutive euploid blastocyst transfers in 123 987 patients”. Human Reproduction 5 (2024): 974-980.
36. Bosch E., et al. “How time to healthy singleton delivery could affect decision-making during infertility treatment: a Delphi consensus”. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 1 (2019): 118-130.
37. Cookson R., et al. “The inverse care law re-examined: a global perspective”. Lancet 10276 (2021): 828-838.
38. Choose a fertility clinic (2024).
39. Conroy G. “Surge in number of ‘extremely productive’ authors concerns scientists”. Nature 7993 (2024): 14-15.
40. ESHRE reports (2023).
41. Garcia-Velasco JA., et al. “Private versus funded infertility care: not a challenge but a call for cooperation Reproductive”. BioMedicine Online1 (2025): 104694.
42. Infertility.
43. TEMA Fertilità.
44. Zegers-Hochschild F., et al. "The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary on ART terminology". Human Reproduction11 (2009): 2683-2687.
45. Practice Committee of the ASRM. "Definition of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss". Fertility and Sterility1 (2013): 63.
46. Mascarenhas MN., et al. "National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: A systematic analysis of 277 health surveys". PLOS Medicine12 (2012): e1001356.
47. Greil AL., et al. "The experience of infertility: A review of recent literature". Sociology of Health and Illness1 (2010): 140-162.
48. Inhorn MC and Patrizio P. "Infertility around the globe: New thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21^st century". Human Reproduction Update4 (2015): 411-426.
49. Henry L., et al. “FIGO statement: Fertility preservation”. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 3 (2023): 790-794.
50. Fertility treatments isteas. https://www.ovoria.com (2024).
51. Gallagher S., et al. “Medicine in the marketplace: clinician and patient views on commercial influences on assisted reproductive technology”. Reproductive BioMedicine Online6 (2024): 103850.
52. Luyten J., et al. “Economic evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: An educational overview of methods and applications for healthcare professionals”. Best Practice and Research: Clinical Obstetrics and GynaecologyB (2022): 217-228.
53. Medical Tourism. Europe's IVF Revolution: Clinics You Need to Know.
54. The CHR Voice. “The rapidly changing world of infertility practice: Where will it lead to?” Journal of IVF-Worldwide1 (2024): 20-28.