Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.21(3) > 1089506

Hann and Kang: Infertile Women's Perception on the National Support Program for Infertile Couples

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the perception of infertile women on the use of the national support program that provides medical expense aid to infertile couples.

Methods

Thirty Korean infertile women participated in five focus groups. Data were collected from January to August 2014. After obtaining permission from the participants, each session of the focus group was audio-taped and transcribed. The responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

The main themes identified from the sessions with the participants were “feeling thankful for the reliable support program,” “feeling happy or unhappy,” “enduring inconveniences,” and “hoping for a more comprehensive support service.” Although most of the participants perceived the benefits of the national support service positively, they stated that the service was not comprehensive because it did not cover all the medical expenses for tests and other medical treatments.

Conclusion

The benefits given to infertile couples by the program should be increased by covering all the medical expenses, expanding its criteria to include more eligible candidates, and by including special leave benefits for working women. Furthermore, it is essential to take measures for infertility prevention at the individual and national policy levels.

REFERENCES

1. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. Press release for increase in infertile couples [Internet]. Seoul: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service;2015. [cited 2011 October 18]. Available from:. http://www.hira.or.kr/dummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA020041000000&cmsurl=/cms/notice/02/1208237_24959.
2. Hwang NM. Physical, psychological and social-economic burden and demands of infertile women. Health·Welfare Issue & Focus. 2011; 74:1–8.
3. Seo K. Reproductive health. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science. 2009; 52(4):387–390.
4. Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. Public funding for assisted reproductive technology for infertile couples [Internet]. Seoul: Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs;2015. [cited 2015 January 20]. Available from:. http://www.korea.go.kr/service/serviceInfoView.do?svcSeq=9054&rnum=9&searchType=0&ctyCode=060000&Mcode=1107.
5. Lim J, Lee JH. Direction and support level of the fertility welfare policy in South Korea. Journal of Population Ageing. 2014; 7(2):115–141.
crossref
6. Berg Brigham K, Cadier B, Chevreul K. The diversity of regulation and public financing of IVF in Europe and its impact on utilization. Human Reproduction. 2013; 28(3):666–675.
crossref
7. Dunn AL, Stafinski T, Menon D. An international survey of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) policies and the effects of these policies on costs, utilization, and health outcomes. Health Policy. 2014; 116(2-3):238–263.
crossref
8. Cook JL, Collins J, Buckett W, Racowsky C, Hughes E, Jarvi K. Assisted reproductive technology-related multiple births: Canada in an international context. Journal of Obstetrics Gynaecology Canada. 2011; 33(2):159–167.
crossref
9. Cabello Y, Gómez-Palomares JL, Castilla JA, Hernández J, Marqueta J, Pareja A, et al. Impact of the Spanish fertility society guidelines on the number of embryos to transfer. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2010; 21(5):667–675.
crossref
10. Chambers GM, Illingworth PJ, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproductive technology: Public funding and the voluntary shift to single embryo transfer in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia. 2011; 195(10):594–598.
crossref
11. Tulandi T, King L, Zelkowitz P. Public funding of and access to in vitro fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013; 368(20):1948–1949.
crossref
12. Yoo GS. The effects of fertility policies on childbirth in 2007. Journal of Family Relations. 2009; 14(1):169–189.
13. Hwang NM, Hwang JH, Kim JE. Evaluation of the national supporting program for infertility couples and future policy directions in Korea. Sejong: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs;2010.
14. Hwang JH, Min EG. Public funding for assisted reproductive technology. Korean Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 2009; 36(4):237–247.
15. Kim GR. The evaluation and prospect of infertile couple support policy- Focused on women's rights to childbirth and rights to health. Journal of Regional Studies. 2012; 20(2):181–200.
16. Hwang NM, Shin HW, Jang IS, Park JS, Kim HN. Reimbursement system of intrauterine insemination treatment and future policy directions in Korea. Sejong: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs;2012.
17. Ha JO. Reproductive rights: Placing the concept in a historical and political context. Health and Social Science. 2013; 34:183–210.
18. Kang HS, Kim MJ. Experiences of infertile women in unsuccessful In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2004; 10(2):119–127.
crossref
19. Kim YS. A phenomenological study on the adoption experience of infertile women [dissertation]. Seoul: Kukje Theological University and Seminary;2011.
20. Lee YJ. An ethnography on infertile women's grief in Korea [dissertation]. Seoul: Kyung Hee University;2008.
21. Lee YJ, Kim KB. Lived experience of IVF-ET program. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2009; 15(1):43–53.
crossref
22. Han HS. A study on Korean women infertility experiencing: Ground theory approach [dissertation]. Seoul: Ewha Womans University;2002.
23. Kang HS, Son YD. Experience of Korean pregnant women for the use of medical expense aid service (KoEnMom Card). Journal of Korean Society Maternal and Child Health. 2011; 15(2):175–185.
24. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health. 2000; 23(4):334–340.
crossref
25. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;2009.
26. Lincolon YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications;1985.
27. Maeda E, Ishihara O, Saito H, Kuwahara A, Toyokawa S, Kobayashi Y. Age-specific cost and public funding of a live birth following assisted reproductive treatment in Japan. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2014; 40(5):1338–1344.
crossref
28. Dolan P, Rudisill C. Babies in waiting: Why increasing the IVF age cutoff might lead to fewer wanted pregnancies in the presence of procrastination. Health Policy. 2015; 119(2):174–179.
crossref
29. Hodgetts K, Hiller JE, Street JM, Carter D, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Watt AM, et al. Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: Outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups. BMC Health Services Research. 2014; 14:204.
crossref
30. Seo IP. Extension of public funding for assisted reproductive technology for infertile couples in Yang Pyoung. KyeongIn Newspaper. 2014 August 19; Sect. 20.

Table 1.
General and Infertile Characteristics (N=30)
Characteristics Categories n(%)
Age (yr) 30~35 13 (43.3)
  36~40 7 (23.3)
  41~44 8 (26.7)
  ≥45 2 (6.7)
Status of marriage Married 28 (93.3)
  Remarried 2 (6.7)
Education ≤High school 4 (13.3)
  ≥College 15 (50.0)
  ≥Master degree 11 (36.7)
Job Yes 16 (53.3)
  No 14 (46.7)
Economic status Middle and higher 27 (90.0)
  Lower 3 (10.0)
Having religion Yes 21 (70.0)
  No 9 (30.0)
Number of IUI cycles 0 22 (73.3)
attempted 1 4 (13.3)
  ≥3 4 (13.3)
Number of IVF cycles ≤3 19 (63.3)
attempted ≥4 4 (13.3)
  ≥10 7 (23.3)
Pregnancy history No 13 (43.3)
  Yes 17 (56.7)
Having children No 23 (76.7)
  Yes 7 (23.3)
Cause of infertility Female 21 (70.0)
  Male 4 (13.3)
  Idiopathic 5 (16.7)
Frequency of 1 7 (23.3)
government support 2 8 (26.7)
for infertility couple 3 5 (16.7)
  4 9 (30.0)
  5 1 (3.3)

IUI=Intrauterine insemination; IVF=In vitro fertilization.

Table 2.
Main Themes and Sub-themes Identified from Focus Group Interviews
Theme Sub-theme Content
Feeling thankful Thankful for being ․ Fortunate to be qualified for subsidies for fertility treatment.
for the support selected and ․ Thankful to be a beneficiary of the subsidies.
program empowered ․ Now, I am able to start a fertility treatment because half of the costs are
    covered.
  Thankful because the ․ I became a mother of ○○ (baby name) because of this financial
  program helped me support program. Thinking back, I am very grateful.
  to be a mother ․ I will be a patriot if this program helps me to have a second baby.
Feeling happy or Strict selection criteria ․ It is disappointing to learn I am not eligible the benefits only because
unhappy   my income is above the limit. I work because I need to pay for medical
    expenses. It is unfair to be excluded from the benefits because I make
    a little more money than others.
  Service without ․ The total cost for infertility treatment per cycle varies depending on
  differences the cause of infertility and treatment a woman needs. It will be helpful
    if women can use the budget across the 4 attempts without an upper
    limit per cycle, especially for couples like us, who incur extra costs than
    average couples because of genetic testing (preimplantation genetic
    diagnosis) and treatments.
Enduring Cumbersome ․ The application process is cumbersome because I have to visit the
inconveniences application process community health center to apply for the program.
    ․ Working women may need to take a day off to visit the center.
    An online or phone-based application process will be helpful.
  Differences in ․ Differences between the claim processes for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
  claim process and artificial insemination in the financial assistance system are confusing.
    In case of artificial insemination, the money is refunded through the
    banking system after submitting papers to a community health center
    posttreatment. On the other hand, I don't have to do anything in case of
    IVF because the hospital takes care of everything.
Hoping for a more Need more benefit ․ Since last year, the program coverage for IVF has increased to
comprehensive coverage ․ 4thattempts. Therefore, I mustered courage to give it another try. It seems
support service   that the program coverage is improving. It could get even better, I guess.
  Need more ․ I am a professional woman and I have worked to gain recognition.
  consideration for However working and getting infertility treatment is a double whammy
  working women for me.
    ․ I need a provision for working women to take some time off for the
    infertility treatment when needed.
  Need new name ․ Rename the service to sound pleasant and friendly such as "Koeun mom
  reflecting a positive card" and to reflect hope, for example, "Wish-for-a-child card" or
  image and hope "Want-a-childcard"
TOOLS
Similar articles