Some of Australia’s major IVF clinics have changed how they advertise success rates after an investigation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) found a number had made misleading claims which could confuse consumers.
ACCC commissioner Sarah Court told 7.30 some players in the industry had been peddling false hope to couples desperate for a baby.
“We had concerns with a significant proportion of the clinics,” Ms Court said.
The concerns fell into two general areas: the use of medical terms in advertising which could confuse the lay person, and selective reporting of success rates.
For example, some clinics advertised a “clinical pregnancy rate” which an average person might understand to mean a live birth of a baby, but actually included ectopic pregnancies or pregnancies where no heartbeat was ever detected.
Selective reporting of success rates included only reporting the number of cycles at the clinic in question, not failed cycles at other clinics.
“For example, a clinic reporting, say, an 85 per cent success rate within two cycles might have not included five previous failed cycles for that woman at another clinic,” Ms Court said.
Both types of claims could mislead consumers, she said.
The ACCC would not reveal which clinics had changed their advertising as a result of the investigation, but Ms Court said of the 34 corporate groups investigated, the consumer watchdog had specific concerns over the advertising of about 10 of them.
‘Advertising had been a bit home-grown’
David Molloy, chair of industry body the Fertility Society of Australia’s IVF Directors’ Group, said the investigation had been “a good thing” for the industry.
“A lot of advertising had been a bit home-grown … so if there are areas where clinics’ claims weren’t accurate or as verifiable as they should be, it’s a really good thing they’ve been straightened up,” he said.
Assisted reproduction has become a fiercely competitive industry in Australia, with more clinics coming online and low-cost operators now challenging the market dominance of larger players including Genea, IVF Australia and Virtus Health.
Around 34,000 women a year have fertility treatment, and one cycle of IVF at a premium clinic can cost up to $12,000.
At the newer, low-cost clinics, which typically treat younger women with fewer complications, one cycle can cost $2,500.
IVF costs Australian taxpayers around $250 million a year in Medicare rebates, with no limit on the number of cycles a woman can receive a rebate for.
Dr Molloy said the increased competition was partly behind some of the misleading claims.
“There is increased competition for a static number of patients and particularly the small units are under pressure,” he said.
However, the ACCC’s Ms Court said larger players had also changed their advertising in response to the investigation.
In February, 7.30 reported concerns had been raised by leaders in the IVF field that a number of players in the industry were peddling false hope to desperate couples.
“I think it’s very aggressive marketing,” IVF pioneer Alan Trounson told 7.30.
“They’re portraying it as being something that’s easily accessible, will fix your problem and you’ll be very happy. And that’s not altogether true, right? We don’t help everybody.”
Ms Court welcomed the industry’s response to the consumer watchdog’s investigation and said clinics had now been put on notice.
“The industry has been responsive, they recognise the importance of [accurate marketing] and they know we will be watching.”
This post originally appeared on ABC News.
© 2016 Australian Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved. Read the ABC Disclaimer here.
Top Comments
Medicalising infertility, for corporate gain. Rather than looking at prevention, through improved nutrition and lifestyle. Also, marketing IVF to women so that they can put off motherhood for longer, therefore creating a cultural dependence on IVF. Where are the figures to show the inroads on infertility, compared to previous generations? How many women would have fallen pregnant naturally anyway? How many couples go through the invasive clinical trauma of IVF when lifestyle choices could be the better focus? IVF does help some couples have children but where is the monitoring of the ethical costs?
There should be easily accessible, easily understood, standardised information available - including both failure and success rates - similar to say, nutrition information on food packages or how insurance companies have to report in a simplified table. It is so distasteful that this is such a lucrative for-profit sector now; I don't think commercially capitalising on the anguished hopes of people desperate to be parents is what the science was discovered for. I think it is encumbent in the government to step in here and protect these vulnerable people from such predatory commercial behaviours.
Agree, there should be standardised reporting on success rates. There's also such an immediate push to go to IVF when it may not actually be necessary that is concerning and comes across as doctors putting profit ahead of patients.