Gynaecological and IVF procedures billed through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) during the COVID‐19 pandemic. (22nd April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Alonso, Anais; Deans, Rebecca; Nesbitt‐Hawes, Erin; Yazdani, Anusch; McCormack, Lalla; Koh, Yi Ying; Abbott, Jason
• Is Part Of: Australian and New Zealand journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. Volume 61:Number 4(2021)
• Page Start: 585
• Page End: 590
• Publication Date: 2021-04-22
• Subjects: COVID‐19 -- elective surgery -- gynaecology -- in vitro fertilisation -- Medicare Benefits Schedule; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13355
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0004-8666

Abstract

Abstract : Background: In response to the COVID‐19 pandemic in Australia, restrictions to elective surgeries were implemented nationwide. Aims: To investigate the response to these restrictions in elective gynaecological and In vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedures during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: We analysed the Medicare Item Reports for the number of elective gynaecological (labioplasty, vulvoplasty; prolapse and continence; operative hysteroscopy; hysterectomy; fertility) and IVF procedures claimed in Australia between January–June 2020 and compared these to January–June 2019. Results: The number of included gynaecological and IVF procedures performed in January–June 2020 decreased by −13.71% and −12.56%, respectively, compared to January–June 2019. The greatest reductions were in May 2020 (gynaecology −43.71%; IVF −51.63% compared to May 2019), while April 2020 reported decreases of −37.69% and −31.42% in gynaecological and IVF procedures, respectively. In April 2020, 1963 IVF cycle initiations (−45.20% compared to April 2019), 2453 oocyte retrievals (−26.99%) and 3136 embryo transfers (−22.95%) were billed. The procedures with greatest paired monthly decrease were prolapse and continence surgeries in April (676 procedures; −51.85%) and May 2020 (704 procedures; −60.05%), and oocyte retrievals in May 2020 (1637 procedures; −56.70%). Conclusions: While we observed a decrease in procedural volumes, elective gynaecological and IVF procedures continued in considerable numbers during the restricted timeframes. In the event of future overwhelming biological threat, careful consideration must be given to more effective measures of limiting access for non‐emergency procedures to conserve essential resources and reduce risk to both the public and healthcare staff.