IVF Clinics Investigation by ACCC Results in Warnings for Misleading Information
Friday 18 November 2016 @ 9.57 a.m. | Trade & Commerce
A recent review of in-vitro fertilisation treatment (IVF) clinics in Australia conducted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), it has been identified that there are use of misleading actions in presenting the public's chances of a having a baby on their websites.
Clinics provide IVF success rates in often confusing ways because there is no agreed format on how this information should be presented.
Background to the Investigation
The ACCC’s investigation followed a complaint from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. As part of its review, the ACCC worked with the Fertility Society of Australia, the IVF industry’s peak body, to improve industry-wide awareness of, and compliance with, the Australian Consumer Law. The Fertility Society of Australia is continuing to work with industry participants to improve transparency about success rate claims and comparisons.
After the investigation, it was revealed that some IVF clinics used “clinical pregnancy rate” data to compare their success rates where that data reflected the clinic’s success in creating an embryo, rather than live birth rates. These comparisons were sometimes accompanied by photographs of newborn babies. The ACCC considered that this was likely to lead to consumers being given a misleading impression about the rate of successful pregnancies achieved by the clinic.
The recent audit, which was then presented at a conference of the Fertility Society of Australia, reviewed the success rates published on the websites of IVF clinics in Australia and New Zealand. The review identified some common traps in the way these figures are presented. They include:
- Definition of clinic success;
- Impact of Age on suitability;
- Health impacts of IVF and appropriate representation of these;
- Multiple treatment cycles; and
- Use of baby images on the website.
Reaction from the ACCC
The ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said of their investigation:
“The ACCC reviewed website content from all major Australian IVF clinics and found that some made success-rate comparisons without adequate disclosure about, or qualification of, the nature of the data or graphics used to make the claim. In addition, some IVF clinics used technical terms understood by industry participants but which may be misleading to consumers without further clarification or explanation.”
Ms Court went on to say:
“The Australian Consumer Law [Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)] applies to the advertising of all goods or services offered to Australian consumers, including complex medical procedures such as these. The ACCC expects that all IVF clinics will take care to ensure that success-rate comparisons are clear and accurate, and based on data that is explained in non-technical terms so that consumers can rely on it to make informed choices about which IVF clinic to use. The ACCC will continue to monitor complaints received about claims made by IVF providers and won’t hesitate to take further action if IVF providers are making false or misleading claims.”
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
Sources:
IVF 'success rate' claims under the microscope - ACCC Media Release 212/16
Five traps to be aware of when reading success rates on IVF clinic websites - abc.net.au
