Assisted reproductive technologies in the system of state funding guarantees: clinical results and management challenges
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2077-6594/2026.3/23Keywords:
ART, clinical and economic outcomes, state support, healthcare facilities, electronic medical records, medical guarantees, electronic health systemAbstract
Purpose is to conduct a comparative analysis and assessment of the effectiveness of the use of assisted reproductive technologies in Ukraine under state funding under the Medical Guarantees Program and identifying the main management areas for improving the financing system. Materials and Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on data from electronic medical records (EMR) entered into the electronic health care system (EHСS) on the provision of medical care under the package of the Medical Guarantees Program “Treatment of infertility using assisted reproductive technologies (in vitro fertilization)” during 2024–2025. The information base of the study was 15.035 episodes of medical care created for the treatment of 8.480 women who had started cycles of assisted reproductive technologies. During the study, the following were assessed: – the structure of medical service providers by form of ownership; – features of the patient’s route and registration of electronic referrals; – the structure of patients depending on age and causes of infertility; – structure of applied ART cycles; – pregnancy rate depending on the clinical form of infertility; – effectiveness of different models of ART use; – features of financing of medical services and certain managerial aspects of implementation of the corresponding package. The effectiveness of ART use was assessed by the frequency of occurrence of clinically confirmed pregnancy. The indicator was calculated as the ratio of the number of women in whom after embryo transfer the diagnosis Z32.1 “Pregnancy confirmed” was registered to the total number of women in whose EMZ embryo transfer services were recorded (services 63.0 and/or 63.1, and/or 63.4). Statistical analysis was performed using the Stata 14.0 application package (StataCorp, USA). Quantitative indicators with normal distribution were described by the arithmetic mean (M) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For indicators with non-normal distribution, the median (Me) and interquartile range (Q1–Q3) were used. Qualitative indicators were compared using the χ² criterion. The results were presented as absolute values and relative values (%). To assess the relationship between binary clinical signs and the identified factors, multiple logistic regression analysis was used with correction for the age of the patients. The results were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Differences were considered statistically significant at a value of p<0.05. The limitations of the study were possible coding errors in individual medical records in the Unified Health System, incomplete information on individual clinical characteristics of the patients, as well as the lack of data on treatment performed outside the Medical Guarantees Program. Results. A comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the use of assisted reproductive technologies in Ukraine with the support of state funding in comparison with other countries was conducted. ART is considered as a component of a comprehensive medical and social system, including clinical, economic and managerial components. A retrospective cohort study included all women who during 2024–2025 started ART cycles and paid providers for services provided under the Medical Guarantees Program, with the calculation of pregnancy rate, live birth rate, complication rate, age-specific efficiency coefficients, which allowed assessing the results of treatment in different groups of patients depending on age, type of infertility and technology used. An assessment of the impact of ART financing on the state budget is shown. Conclusions. Assisted reproductive technologies are an effective method of treating infertility and an important component of modern demographic policy. The analysis confirmed the high effectiveness of the use of ART within the framework of the Medical Guarantees Program, while demonstrating the need to improve approaches to assessing the activities of medical service providers. The results obtained indicate the feasibility of standardizing approaches to registering treatment outcomes in the EHR, introducing risk-adjusted performance indicators and a comprehensive monitoring system that will take into account not only clinical effectiveness, but also indicators of safety, accessibility, and quality of medical care. Further development of the ART financing system should be based on the principles of evidence-based medicine, international practices of performance assessment, and modern digital technologies, which will contribute to increasing the efficiency of budget funds, ensuring fair contracting of medical service providers, and improving the accessibility of infertility treatment in Ukraine.
References
World Health Organization. Guideline for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of infertility [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025 [cited 2026 Sep 16]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240115774.
World Health Organisation Guideline Development Group for Infertility, Mburu G, Santesso N, Brignardello-Petersen R, Kennedy R, Farquhar C, et al. Recommendations from the WHO guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infertility. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2026;125(5):880–894. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.11.014.
European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Calhaz-Jorge C, Smeenk J, Wyns C, De Neubourg D, Baldani DP, Bergh C, et al. Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding, and registries in European countries – an update. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2024;39(9):1909–1924. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deae163.
ESHRE Guideline Group on Ovarian Stimulation, Ata B, Bosch E, Broer S, Griesinger G, Grynberg M, et al. ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI: an update in 2025. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2026;41(4):498–514. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deag018.
Ribeiro S, Sousa M. In vitro fertilisation and intracytoplasmic sperm injection predictive factors: a review of the effect of female age, ovarian reserve, male age, and male factor on IVF/ICSI treatment outcomes. JBRA Assist Reprod [Internet]. 2023;27(1):97–111. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20220000.
Vitagliano A, Paffoni A, Viganò P. Does maternal age affect assisted reproduction technology success rates after euploid embryo transfer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2023;120(2):251–265. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.02.036.
Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and World Health Organization revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2009;92(5):1520–1524. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009.
Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2017;32(9):1786–1801. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex234.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee for the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Gamete and embryo donation guidance. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2024;122(5):799–813. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.06.004.
World Health Organization. Infertility prevalence estimates, 1990–2021 [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023 [cited 2026 Sep 16]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240068317.
Zhylka NY, Mironyuk IS, Slabkiy GO. Characteristics of the reproductive health of female population in Ukraine. Wiad Lek [Internet]. 2018;71(9):1803–1808. PMID:30737944. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30737944/.
Hunt S, Vollenhoven B. Pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility. Aust J Gen Pract [Internet]. 2023;52(4):215–218. DOI: 10.31128/AJGP-09-22-6576.
Ravel J, Moreno I, Simón C. Bacterial vaginosis and its association with infertility, endometritis, and pelvic inflammatory disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2021;224(3):251–257. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.10.019.
Salmanov AG, Terekhov VA, Baksheev SM, Vitiuk AD, Korniyenko SM, Nagirniak S, et al. Infections associated with obstetric and gynecological surgeries as a cause of female infertility in Ukraine. Wiad Lek [Internet]. 2022;75(7):1634–1641. DOI: 10.36740/WLek202207104.
Моісеєнко Р, Жилка Н, Гойда Н, Дудіна О, Голубчиков М, Октисюк Ж. Стан репродуктивного здоров’я жінок України. Україна. Здоров’я нації [Internet]. 2023;(1):51–59. DOI: 10.32782/2077-6594/2023.1/09.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Fertility treatment 2023: trends and figures [Internet]. London: HFEA; 2025 [cited 2026 Sep 16]. Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publications/research-and-data/fertility-treatment-2023-trends-and-figures/.
Katagiri Y, Jwa SC, Kuwahara A, Iwasa T, Ono M, Kato K, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Japan: a summary report for 2023 by the Committee on Professional Scientific Conduct and Clinical Ethics of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Reprod Med Biol [Internet]. 2026;25(1). DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.70008.
Sonigo C, Ahdad-Yata N, Pirtea P, Solignac C, Grynberg M, Sermondade N. Do IVF culture conditions have an impact on neonatal outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet [Internet]. 2024;41(3):563–580. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03020-0.
Field A, Rozen G, Gan J, Polyakov A. Assessing obstetric outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing fresh, artificial, and natural thaw embryo transfer cycles. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol [Internet]. 2024;64(2):104–113. DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13750.
Busnelli A, Di Simone N, Somigliana E, Greppi D, Cirillo F, Bulfoni A, et al. Untangling the independent effect of endometriosis, adenomyosis, and ART-related factors on maternal, placental, fetal, and neonatal adverse outcomes: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update [Internet]. 2024;30(6):751–788. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmae024.
Baker VL, Dyer S, Chambers GM, Keller E, Banker M, de Mouzon J, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART): world report for cycles conducted in 2017–2018. Hum Reprod [Internet]. 2025;40(6):1110–1126. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaf049.
Міністерство охорони здоров’я України. Програма медгарантій: покриваємо широкий спектр послуг з безоплатного лікування безпліддя за допомогою допоміжних репродуктивних технологій – рішення Уряду [Internet]. Київ: МОЗ України; 2024 Aug 30 [cited 2026 Sep 16]. Available from: https://moz.gov.ua/.
Fortune Business Insights. Assisted reproductive technology market size, share & industry analysis, by technique, procedure, end user and regional forecast, 2026–2034 [Internet]. Pune: Fortune Business Insights; 2026 [cited 2026 Jul 23]. Available from: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/assisted-reproductive-technology-art-market-101811.
Grand View Research. Assisted reproductive technology market size, share & trends analysis report by type (IVF, artificial insemination), by end-use (fertility clinics & other facilities, hospitals & other settings), by region, and segment forecasts, 2024–2030 [Internet]. San Francisco (CA): Grand View Research; 2022 [updated 2026 Jul; cited 2026 Jul 23]. Available from: https://www.grandviewresearch. com/industry-analysis/assisted-reproductive-technology-market.
Vermeulen N, Ata B, Gianaroli L, Lundin K, Mocanu E, Rautakallio-Hokkanen S, et al. The Maribor consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of performance indicators for clinical practice in ART. Hum Reprod Open [Internet]. 2021;2021(3). DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoab022.
ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology, Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators. Reprod Biomed Online [Internet]. 2017;35(5):494–510. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.015.
ESHRE. Performance indicators for the ART Clinic: The Maribor consensus report of an expert meeting on the development of performance indicators for clinical practice in ART [Internet]. Grimbergen (Belgium): European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology; [cited 2026 Sep 16]. Available from: https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/Guidelines/Performance-indicators-for-the-ART-Clinic.
ESHRE. EuMAR Registry: European Monitoring of Medically Assisted Reproduction [Internet]. Grimbergen (Belgium): European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology; 2025 [cited 2026 Sep 16]. Available from: https://www.eshre.eu/Data-collection-and-research/EuMAR.
Lindner L, Lorenzoni L. Innovative providers’ payment models for promoting value-based health systems: start small, prove value, and scale up. OECD Health Working Papers. No. 154 [Internet]. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023 [cited 2026 Jul 23]. DOI: 10.1787/627fe490-en.
van Loendersloot LL, Mol BWJ. Value-based outcome measures for ART: much room for improvement. Reprod Biomed Online [Internet]. 2025;52:105179. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2025.105179.
De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Goossens V, Magli CM, Smeenk J, Vesela K, et al. EuMAR: a roadmap towards a prospective, cycle-by-cycle registry of medically assisted reproduction in Europe. Hum Reprod Open [Internet]. 2023;2023(2). DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoad011.




