An international survey of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) policies and the effects of these policies on costs, utilization, and health outcomes.

[1]  P. Illingworth,et al.  Socioeconomic disparities in access to ART treatment and the differential impact of a policy that increased consumer costs. , 2013, Human reproduction.

[2]  E. Lesaffre,et al.  The history of Belgian assisted reproduction technology cycle registration and control: a case study in reducing the incidence of multiple pregnancy. , 2013, Human reproduction.

[3]  L. Hyslop,et al.  NHS-funded IVF: consequences of NICE implementation , 2013, Human fertility.

[4]  T. Tulandi,et al.  Public funding of and access to in vitro fertilization. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  M. Velez,et al.  Rapid policy change to single-embryo transfer while maintaining pregnancy rates per initiated cycle. , 2013, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[6]  K. Chevreul,et al.  The diversity of regulation and public financing of IVF in Europe and its impact on utilization. , 2013, Human reproduction.

[7]  V. Fournier,et al.  Access to assisted reproductive technologies in France: the emergence of the patients’ voice , 2013, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[8]  H. Holzer,et al.  In vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes in humans before and after public funding , 2012 .

[9]  W. Son,et al.  Number of embryos transferred during in-vitro fertilization cycles in women at least 40 years-old and the effect on pregnancy and multiple gestation rates , 2012 .

[10]  N. Mahutte,et al.  Moving towards single embryo transfer: a cautionary tale , 2012 .

[11]  Rong Zhu,et al.  A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government , 2012, BMC Health Services Research.

[12]  I. Blickstein,et al.  The 2004 Italian legislation on the application of assisted reproductive technology: epilogue. , 2012, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[13]  P. Patrizio,et al.  The Italian Experience of A Restrictive IVF Law: A Review , 2012 .

[14]  R. Lobo.  Recognizing existing framework for regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in the United States. , 2011, Contraception.

[15]  P. Illingworth,et al.  Assisted reproductive technology: public funding and the voluntary shift to single embryo transfer in Australia , 2011, The Medical journal of Australia.

[16]  F. Bissonnette,et al.  Working to eliminate multiple pregnancies: a success story in Québec. , 2011, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[17]  C. Racowsky,et al.  Assisted reproductive technology-related multiple births: Canada in an international context. , 2011, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC.

[18]  E. Morenghi,et al.  Italian Constitutional Court modifications of a restrictive assisted reproduction technology law significantly improve pregnancy rate. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[19]  I. Cooke,et al.  International Federation of Fertility Societies Surveillance 2010: preface. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[20]  Martha Dirnfeld,et al.  The effect of paternal age on assisted reproduction outcome. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[21]  S. Bhattacharya,et al.  Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. , 2011, Human reproduction update.

[22]  J. Castilla,et al.  Impact of the Spanish Fertility Society guidelines on the number of embryos to transfer. , 2010, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[23]  F. Simonstein.  IVF policies with emphasis on Israeli practices. , 2010, Health policy.

[24]  Allan Robb Fleming,et al.  MacLean's Magazine , 2010 .

[25]  J. Vollmann,et al.  Who should pay for assisted reproductive techniques? Answers from patients, professionals and the general public in Germany. , 2010, Human reproduction.

[26]  D. Young,et al.  Elective single embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization. , 2010, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC.

[27]  L. Gianaroli,et al.  The Italian Constitutional Court modifies Italian legislation on assisted reproduction technology. , 2010, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[28]  E. Dietrich,et al.  Effects of the Statutory Health Insurance Modernization Act on the supply and expenditure situation in cases of assisted reproductive technologies in Germany. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[29]  C. Sorenson,et al.  Public Financing of IVF: A Review of Policy Rationales , 2010, Health Care Analysis.

[30]  E. Sullivan,et al.  Perinatal Outcomes after Assisted Reproductive Technology Treatment in Australia and New Zealand: Single versus Double Embryo Transfer , 2009 .

[31]  I. Blickstein,et al.  The effect of the 2004 Italian legislation on perinatal outcomes following assisted reproduction technology , 2009, Journal of perinatal medicine.

[32]  E. Albani,et al.  Results of in vitro fertilization in Italy after the introduction of a new law. , 2008, Fertility and sterility.

[33]  I. Blickstein,et al.  The effect of legislation on outcomes of assisted reproduction technology: lessons from the 2004 Italian law. , 2008, Fertility and sterility.

[34]  J. Dungan.  A mandatory single blastocyst transfer policy with educational campaign in a United States IVF program reduces multiple gestation rates without sacrificing pregnancy rates , 2008 .

[35]  R. Dickey.  The relative contribution of assisted reproductive technologies and ovulation induction to multiple births in the United States 5 years after the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology/American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommendation to limit the number of embryos transferred. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[36]  L. Rienzi,et al.  Impact of Italian legislation regulating assisted reproduction techniques on ICSI outcomes in severe male factor infertility: a multicentric survey. , 2007, Human reproduction.

[37]  N. Klein,et al.  Assisted reproductive technology practice patterns and the impact of embryo transfer guidelines in the United States. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[38]  A. Banerjee.  An insight into the ethical issues related to in vitro fertilization , 2006 .

[39]  T. D’Hooghe,et al.  New Belgian legislation regarding the limitation of transferable embryos in in vitro fertilization cycles does not significantly influence the pregnancy rate but reduces the multiple pregnancy rate in a threefold way in the Leuven University Fertility Center. , 2005, Fertility and sterility.

[40]  D. Adamson.  Regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in the United States. , 2002, Family law quarterly.

[41]  J. Norré,et al.  Belgian legislation and the effect of elective single embryo transfer on IVF outcome. , 2005, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[42]  Shahar Kol,et al.  Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) , 2004 .

[43]  L. Gianaroli,et al.  The new Italian IVF legislation. , 2004, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[44]  L. Hamberger,et al.  Financing of IVF/ET in the Nordic countries , 1998, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[45]  E. Hemminki,et al.  Practice of in-vitro fertilization: a case study from Finland. , 1996, Social science & medicine.

[46]  H. M. Beier,et al.  German Embryo Protection Act (October 24th, 1990): Gesetz zum Schutz von Embryonen (Embryonenschutzgesetz-ESchG). , 1991, Human reproduction.