Egg Freezing: How Much Do You Really Know About It?

 

Freezing your eggs is a relatively new procedure, so not a great deal is known about how it affects your wellbeing. Luckily, we’ve got the info from sexual health and wellness expert Sarah Elizabeth Richards, author of new book Motherhood, Rescheduled, who has written about three “clocktickers”—women in their mid- to late thirties whose fertility is waning—who not only froze their eggs but later used them to try to have babies. Richards even started her own odyssey with the process when she was 36. She notes, ‘Even if you’ve heard about egg freezing, you probably still don’t know anyone who has done it.’ So let’s learn a little bit more from the expert, shall we?

 

1. Now Egg Freezing is Not Considered an Experimental Procedure, is Everyone Doing it? ‘Well, not really,’ says Richards. ‘The technology may seem more mainstream, but some fertility specialists still feel uncomfortable with it. I tell the story of Dr. Michael Tucker in my book. He just couldn’t look a 35-year-old in the eye and say, “I got your fertility, don’t worry about it.” Doctors fear that if they safeguard your eggs, you won’t do the things you need to do to find a partner or make your life ready for a child. But I actually found that egg freezing motivates women to take charge of their lives. That was one of the big surprises.’

 

2. How Did Egg Freezing Change Your Behaviour? Richards recalls, ‘I used to see a kid and think, I’m not going to have that. But now I feel like I’m 25 again, in that I can think about my future. Those eggs are always there for you. And even if you don’t get a baby from [the process], it’s still money well spent, because you can just relax. You no longer go on a bad date and get sad. You just think, This may not work out, but I’ll still have some fun. I got a lot more attention from men after I froze, probably because I felt better about myself, more powerful. I dressed differently, wore more dresses, prettier colours. I could pay attention to myself.’

 

3. What’s the Success Rate of Egg Freezing? ‘This is always a tricky question, because the chance of success depends on the quality of a woman’s eggs and the expertise of the fertility clinic,’ Richards explains. ‘Doctors have given me a wide range, one saying that a woman in her mid-thirties who froze 10 eggs had a “good chance” of bringing home a baby, and another saying 30 was a safer bet. As a rule of thumb, if a doctor thaws 10 eggs, maybe eight will survive, six will fertilize, and you’ll end up with two or three quality embryos to be transferred. The average patient using eggs frozen at 35 has about a 40% chance of becoming pregnant per cycle, which is the same as with standard IVF.’

 

4. How Expensive Is It? ‘It’s $8,000 to $13,000 per round,’ says Richards. ‘I became a bit obsessive and did eight rounds. I have 70 eggs. But I did a lot of sourcing—I saw a doctor in Canada, where it’s much cheaper; my second round in New York was discounted, that sort of thing—so my total cost was about $50,000. Ridiculous, I know. But my parents helped, and I justified it by thinking how much more expensive fertility treatments would be in my forties. I’m also aware there’s no money left for, say, a fancy wedding. Clinics are working on models to make it more affordable. For example, a clinic covers your costs, and you donate half the eggs from a cycle [to women who can’t produce viable eggs of their own], and the other half are frozen for you.’

 

Categories: book, Cost, egg freezing

The Fantastic Low Cost High Protein Foods You Should Try

Any expert in diet and nutrition will tell you that protein is essential for your wellness and wellbeing. The problem with protein, is that it tends to have a considerable price tag associated with it.

 

Protein is important because it helps to aid muscle repair and recovery after a bout of exercise. A high protein diet tends to be more expensive than a high carb diet, however, but there are ways around this. If you are a savvy shopper, you can make some sensible choices to help bring down the cost of the protein on your weekly menu.

 

Liver, for example, is a very out of fashion type of food, but it is cheap and is packed with protein. Ox liver is one of the cheapest sources of protein that you could possibly buy and, like other offal, it is one of the most nutrient-dense foods available. Due to the fact that the liver is used for detoxification, it can also harbour certain toxins, so you need to steer clear of livers from older or bigger animals, especially non-organic ones. Chicken or lambs liver is your best bet, and be sure to buy organic if you can. Liver is packed with vitamins, including A, iron, B12 and the full range of B vitamins, as well as that all-important protein.

 

Mussels are also protein rich. They are a little more expensive, but still great value, and contain lots of minerals such as selenium, iron, zinc and vitamins C and B12. They’re also very delicious, especially when cooked with garlic, wine and chilli.

 

Quark is another excellent source of protein, and very cheap at 34p per 100g. This is a rich, creamy cheese that is very high in protein as well as being a great source of B vitamins and calcium. You can use it to thicken sauces (even that garlic and wine sauce for the mussels to double-dose on your protein if you want!)

Categories: Cost, high, high protein, Liver, low, nbsp, Protein, vitamins

Prescription Charges: Arthritis Sufferers Face Costly Choice

The Government has been called upon to end unfair prescription charges for all people with long-term conditions. More than 20 charities representing millions of people with long-term conditions – known collectively as the Prescription Charges Coalition – launched the Paying the Price report, which shows that people are struggling to pay for their prescriptions and are severely compromising their health as a result of not collecting or taking expensive medicines.

The report revealed that 35% of those who paid for each prescription stated that they had not collected medicine due to the cost, and many had suffered as a result; needing emergency hospitalisation or to go back to their doctors. 30% of those who did not have a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC) said that this is because they cannot afford the £104 annual outlay that the 12 month certificate costs. In addition, over 76% of respondents had not heard of the NHS Low Income Scheme.

Mother of four Emma Wesley’s wellness has been affected by rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for eight years. To take care of her wellbeing, the 38-year-old needs a complex regimen of medications, otherwise her condition would be very painful. Emma commented, ‘Some months I need six prescriptions to help me keep the disease under control.  At the new prescription rate that could amount to a staggering £47.10.  Having already undergone surgery on my feet to pin my toes dislocated by the RA, I know how important it is to take my medicines, but when it comes to deciding whether to feed the children or pay for medicines, it is my children first.’ She added that people with other lifelong diseases, like diabetes, don’t have to pay for prescriptions, and it should be the same for everyone.

David Barker, CEO of Crohn’s and Colitis UK, spokesperson for the Prescription Charges Coalition, explained, ‘Our new report underlines the fact that prescription charges are causing hardship and increasing the overall cost to society. Nearly three quarters (73.2%) of survey respondents pay for their prescriptions and we know that many are facing hard decisions about taking their much-needed medicines to enable them to remain in employment and care for their families.’

Categories: Arthritis, Cost, prescription medicines

The Costs of Cancer: NICE Refuses to Pay for New Drug

If you have a specific type of lung cancer, a new drug that could significantly improve your wellbeing is too expensive for the NHS. This is according to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), who have refused to pay for Crizotinib, which costs £4,000, as they are unsure how successful the drug is, and so it is not deemed to be cost-effective.

This has sparked discontent amongst wellness experts, such as Dr Michael Peake, Clinical Lead, National Cancer Intelligence Network, who said ‘In an aggressive disease like advanced lung cancer, where, for the majority of patients, survival is exceptionally poor and where not all patients can expect to gain much benefit with existing therapies, there is an urgent need for new medicines like crizotinib which target the specific drivers of a patient’s tumour. Clinicians recognise that the future of cancer treatment lies in these types of targeted medicines. If this preliminary guidance is upheld, it potentially signals a setback to the advancement of cancer medicine in the UK.’

The drug, which is aimed at patients in their 40s and 50s, has been granted a conditional licence by the EU drug regulatory body because it serves an “unmet clinical need” which is expected shortly to become a full licence. Crizotinib works by halting the advance of lung cancer for almost eight months – more than double the time for chemotherapy which, according to experts, costs more than £1,000 a month but is being given to hundreds of patients who will get little or no benefit. Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often have  a second round of chemotherapy which threatens some life-threatening side effects, but the drug has far fewer adverse effects, and could be beneficial to two-thirds of NSCLC sufferers.

Dr David Montgomery, Medical Director of Pfizer Oncology UK which makes the drug, commented, ‘Personalised medicines are developed specifically for selected subgroups of patients who are most likely to benefit, sparing those in whom they will have no effect. We believe this approach is better for patients and offers better value for the NHS, a concept in keeping with NICE’s purpose. We are committed to working through the NICEe consultation process to address the uncertainties within this preliminary recommendation.’

The Costs of Cancer: NICE Refuses to Pay for New Drug

Categories: Cost, Drug, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

U.S. Infant Male Circumcision and Heath Care

Steadily declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision could add more than $4.4 billion in avoidable health care costs, if rates over the next decade drop to levels now seen in Europe.

The expense stems from new cases and higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and related cancers among uncircumcised men and their female partners. The study is believed to be the first cost analysis to account for increased rates of multiple infectious diseases associated with lower rates of male circumcision, including HIV/AIDS, herpes and genital warts, as well as cervical and penile cancers. Previous research focused mostly on HIV, the single most costly disease whose risk of infection is decreased by male circumcision, a procedure that removes foreskin at the tip of the penis, hindering the buildup of bacteria and viruses in the penis’ skin folds.

Roughly 55 percent of the 2 million males born each year in the United States are circumcised, a decline from a high of 79 percent in the 1970s and ’80s. Rates in Europe average only 10 percent, and in Denmark, only 1.6 percent of infant males undergo the procedure.

Their economic evidence is backing up what their medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear.  There are health benefits to infant male circumcision in guarding against illness and disease, and declining male circumcision rates come at a severe price, not just in human suffering, but in billions of health care dollars as well.

The 20-year decline in the number of American males circumcised at birth has already cost the nation upwards of $2 billion (estimate).

On an average, each male circumcision passed over and not performed leads to $313 more in illness-related expenses.  These costs would not have been incurred if these men had undergone the procedure.

State funding cuts in Medicaid, the government medical assistance program for the poor, have substantially reduced numbers of U.S. infant male circumcisions, noting that 18 states have stopped paying for the procedure. The financial and health consequences of these decisions are becoming worse over time, especially if more states continue on this ill-fated path.  State governments need to start recognising the medical benefits as well as the cost savings from providing insurance coverage for infant male circumcision..

The researchers constructed a novel economic model to predict the cost implications of not circumcising a male newborn. Included in their forecasting was information from multiple studies and databases that closely tracked the number of overall infections for each sexually transmitted disease, as well as the numbers of new people infected. Costs were conservatively limited to direct costs for drug treatment, physician visits and hospital care, and did not include indirect costs from work absences and medical travel expenses.

U.S. Infant Male Circumcision and Heath Care

Categories: Cicumcisions, Cost, STI