Singapore Government Co-funding of Private IVF Treatment: A Competitive Public Tender Procurement Model

Please see the following video presentation:

Summary: Singapore faces a profound demographic crisis, with its total fertility rate (TFR) falling to a historic low of 0.87 births per woman in 2025, far below the replacement level of 2.1. While the government currently co-funds in vitro fertilization (IVF) at public hospitals by up to 75%, extended waiting times and capacity constraints have generated demand to extend subsidies to private clinics. This white paper proposes a competitive public tender procurement model, analogous to Singapore's established Government Electronic Business (GeBIZ) framework, under which private IVF clinics would submit price-capped bids for basic “no-frills” IVF cycles without any ancillary “add-on” procedures. Approval for co-funding would be contingent not only on competitive pricing but also on audited live birth rates meeting or exceeding public hospital benchmarks. A critical safeguard concerns the proliferation of expensive IVF "add-ons" with dubious therapeutic value. Desperate patients who have previously failed IVF in public hospitals are particularly vulnerable to aggressive marketing of unproven ancillary procedures, and the receipt of government co-funding may paradoxically increase their financial capacity to purchase such add-ons. Drawing on guidelines from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), and a landmark 2026 meta-analysis, this paper recommends banning or strictly regulating add-ons lacking robust evidence, including time-lapse imaging, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), and endometrial receptivity testing, while incorporating only evidence-supported procedures within co-funded cycles.

Keywords: Total Fertility Rate (TFR), In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Healthcare Subsidies, Competitive Tender Procurement, IVF Add-ons, Singapore Policy

1. Introduction: Singapore's Demographic Imperative and the Case for Expanded IVF Access via Co-funding of Private Treatment

     Singapore confronts what its Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong has described as an "existential challenge." In 2025, the nation's total fertility rate (TFR) plummeted to an unprecedented low of 0.87 births per woman, a sharp decline from 0.97 in 2024 and well below the replacement level of 2.1 [1]. At this trajectory, Singapore's citizen population is projected to shrink by the early 2040s [1]. The government has responded with a comprehensive suite of pronatalist measures, including the Baby Bonus cash gift, MediSave grants for newborns, and substantial subsidies for assisted reproductive technology (ART). Under the current co-funding framework, eligible Singapore Citizen couples undergoing IVF at public assisted reproduction (AR) centres can receive up to 75% government co-funding, capped at SGD 7,700 per fresh cycle and SGD 2,200 per frozen cycle, for up to three fresh and three frozen cycles [2]. Additional support is available through MediSave withdrawals of up to SGD 6,000 for the first cycle, SGD 5,000 for the second, and SGD 4,000 for subsequent cycles, subject to a lifetime limit of SGD 15,000 per patient [2].

     Despite these generous subsidies, the co-funding framework is currently restricted to public AR centres. Private IVF clinics, which charge between SGD 13,000 and SGD 25,000 per cycle, remain entirely outside the co-funding umbrella [3]. This disparity has created a two-tiered system in which couples who can afford private care bypass the public system entirely, while those who cannot must navigate the public hospital waiting list. In March 2023, in response to a parliamentary question by MP Louis Ng Kok Kwang, the Ministry of Health (MOH) acknowledged that public AR centres were operating at approximately 67% utilisation with average waiting times of four to eight weeks, while simultaneously indicating that it was studying the merits of extending co-funding to private clinics [4]. The MOH's stated concerns were threefold: ensuring clinical outcomes are monitored and acceptable, ensuring couples are charged reasonably, and ensuring co-funding monies are used prudently [4].

     These concerns are well-founded and form the central policy challenge addressed by this white paper. The extension of public subsidies to private healthcare providers introduces complex economic and ethical dilemmas. Private clinics operate on a for-profit model, and there is a legitimate risk that public subsidies could be absorbed into corporate profit margins rather than translating into meaningful patient benefit [5, 6]. Moreover, the commercial dynamics of private fertility medicine create a powerful incentive to upsell patients on expensive ancillary procedures — so-called "add-ons" — which therapeutic value is, in many cases, either unproven or demonstrably absent [7]. This white paper therefore proposes a rigorous competitive tender procurement model for implementing private IVF co-funding, accompanied by stringent safeguards against the misallocation of public funds.

2. A Competitive Public Tender Procurement Model

2.1. Conceptual Framework and Precedents

     The proposed model draws on Singapore's well-established tradition of competitive public procurement. Under the Government Electronic Business (GeBIZ) portal, government agencies routinely invite suppliers to submit competitive bids for the provision of goods and services, with evaluation criteria encompassing both price and quality [8]. A key feature of Singapore's procurement philosophy is that the lowest bid does not automatically win; track record, technical capability, and quality assurance are weighted alongside price [8]. This principle is directly applicable to the procurement of IVF services from private clinics.

     A useful domestic analogy is Singapore's Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system for motor vehicles, in which the government controls the total supply of vehicle registrations through a quota system, while market forces determine the clearing price within that quota [9]. Adapting this logic to IVF co-funding, the MOH could establish an annual quota of co-funded IVF cycles available through the private sector, with a price ceiling below which participating clinics must commit to charge. This would prevent the well-documented phenomenon of private providers raising their fees to absorb the full value of any subsidy, a pattern observed in Australia when uncapped Medicare rebates for ART were introduced [10]. When Australia introduced caps on its Extended Medicare Safety Net benefits for ART procedures in 2010, the number of fresh IVF cycles performed in the private sector declined by 16%, suggesting that the prior uncapped subsidy had been fuelling demand inflated by opportunistic fee escalation [10].

     A further domestic precedent is the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), under which the MOH subsidizes primary care consultations at over 1,300 participating private GP clinics [11]. CHAS clinics must meet quality standards and charge within prescribed fee caps to retain their accreditation, demonstrating that a public-private co-funding model with price controls and quality requirements is both administratively feasible and clinically effective in the Singapore context [11].

2.2. Price-Capped "No-Frills" Basic IVF Cycles

     Under the proposed tender model, the MOH would invite private IVF clinics to submit bids to provide basic, "no-frills" IVF treatment cycles at a price at or below a government-determined cap. The co-funded package would encompass only evidence-based, standard-of-care procedures: ovarian stimulation, egg retrieval, fertilization (with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI), embryo culture, and fresh or frozen embryo transfer. All add-on procedures would be explicitly excluded from the co-funded package, and clinics would be required to present add-ons as entirely separate, out-of-pocket expenditures with transparent disclosure of their evidence base and cost.

     The price cap would be set by the MOH based on a benchmarking exercise comparing the actual cost of delivering basic IVF services across public and private centres, adjusted for reasonable profit margins. This approach mirrors the MOH's existing practice of setting co-funding caps for public hospital IVF cycles based on assessed reasonable costs [2]. The cap would be reviewed periodically to account for changes in input costs, technological advances, and market conditions.

2.3. Performance-Based Qualification: The Track Record Criterion

     Consistent with GeBIZ evaluation principles, approval for co-funding must not be awarded solely on the basis of competitive pricing. The clinical track record of individual private IVF clinics must constitute a heavily weighted evaluation criterion. Specifically, clinics must demonstrate live birth rates per initiated cycle that are equal to or higher than those achieved by public AR centres, stratified by patient age group, to ensure like-for-like comparisons [5]. This requirement serves multiple purposes. First, it prevents the co-funding scheme from subsidizing clinics with poor clinical outcomes, thereby protecting patients. Second, it creates a powerful incentive for private clinics to focus on genuine clinical excellence rather than revenue maximization through add-on sales. Third, it deters clinics from accepting patients with very poor prognoses — such as those with severely diminished ovarian reserve or advanced maternal age — solely to generate co-funded cycle revenue, knowing that such cases would depress their audited success rates.

     The track record assessment would require the establishment of a mandatory national ART registry, analogous to the UK's HFEA register or Australia's National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit (NPESU) annual report, in which all private clinics are required to submit detailed outcome data for every treatment cycle [12]. This registry would enable independent annual audits of private clinic performance, with the results made publicly available to inform patient choice. Clinics whose audited live birth rates fall below the benchmark for two consecutive years would lose their co-funding accreditation.

3. The Threat of IVF Add-ons: Patient Vulnerability and the Risk of Subsidy Leakage

3.1. The Commercial Landscape of IVF Add-ons

     IVF add-ons are optional, non-essential procedures, tests, or medications offered alongside standard IVF, typically marketed with claims of improving the probability of a live birth [7]. The landscape of add-ons is vast and commercially lucrative, encompassing time-lapse imaging of embryos, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), endometrial receptivity testing (ERA), endometrial scratching, immunological treatments such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and intralipid infusions, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections, physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PICSI), EmbryoGlue, acupuncture, and growth hormone supplementation, among others [7]. More than 70% of IVF patients in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand report paying for at least one add-on during their treatment, despite the majority lacking robust evidence of benefit [13].

     The commercial incentive to offer add-ons is substantial. In a highly competitive private fertility market, add-ons serve as a key differentiator between clinics, allowing them to market a perception of superior, personalized care [14]. The additional revenue generated by add-ons can be considerable; some individual add-ons cost thousands of dollars per cycle, and a patient undergoing multiple cycles may spend far more on ancillary procedures than on the core IVF treatment itself [13]. This commercial dynamic creates a structural conflict of interest between the financial interests of private clinics and the clinical and financial interests of their patients.

3.2. The Exploitation of Patient Vulnerability

     The ethical dimensions of add-on marketing in IVF are particularly acute because of the unique psychological vulnerability of fertility patients. Infertility is associated with profound psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, and grief, and the desire for a biological child is often experienced as a fundamental life goal. This creates what Wrigley and colleagues have described as a "hope technology" dynamic, in which patients' intense hope for a successful outcome renders them susceptible to the exploitation of that hope by commercial providers [14]. Patients who have experienced one or more failed IVF cycles are especially vulnerable, as each failure intensifies the desperation to try something — anything — that might make a difference. Research confirms that ART patients have reported they would continue treatment for as long as any chance of success persisted, until they had exhausted all options or been advised to stop by their physician [14].

     This vulnerability is directly relevant to the proposed co-funding extension. Patients who seek private IVF are disproportionately those who have already failed IVF at public hospitals, making them precisely the population most susceptible to aggressive add-on marketing [5]. Furthermore, the receipt of government co-funding for the basic IVF cycle effectively frees up disposable income that patients might otherwise have spent on the core treatment, increasing their financial capacity to purchase add-ons [5]. The perverse outcome could be that public subsidies, intended to make IVF more affordable, instead fuel the consumption of expensive, unproven ancillary procedures, with no net improvement in live birth rates and a significant drain on household finances.

     A 2024 survey by the HFEA found that almost three-quarters of patients who underwent fertility treatment reported using additional tests or emerging technologies, yet only 37% said the risks of any add-ons had been explained to them [15]. This information asymmetry — in which clinics present add-ons as beneficial innovations while withholding or downplaying evidence of their limited efficacy — constitutes a form of exploitation that regulatory frameworks must actively address. As Dr Fergus Macbeth, chair of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) fertility guideline committee, observed in 2025: "People going through fertility treatment are often willing to try anything that might help them conceive. This makes them vulnerable to being offered treatments that sound promising but haven't been properly tested" [15].

4. Evaluating the Therapeutic Efficacy of Common IVF Add-ons

4.1. The HFEA Traffic Light Rating System

     The most comprehensive regulatory framework for evaluating IVF add-ons is the HFEA's traffic light rating system, which classifies add-ons according to the quality and direction of evidence for their effect on treatment outcomes [7]. The system employs five categories: green (high-quality evidence of effectiveness), yellow (conflicting moderate or high-quality evidence), grey (insufficient moderate or high-quality evidence), black (moderate or high-quality evidence of no effect), and red (potential safety concerns and/or evidence suggesting the add-on may reduce effectiveness) [7]. This framework provides a principled basis for the MOH to determine which add-ons should be banned, restricted to research settings, incorporated within co-funded cycles, or permitted as optional out-of-pocket expenditures with mandatory evidence disclosure.

     The most authoritative recent synthesis of the evidence is a landmark systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, & Women's Health in June 2026 by Lensen and colleagues [13]. This study, the most comprehensive of its kind, searched major academic databases for prospectively registered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ten common IVF add-ons. Of 157 potentially eligible trials, 72 were excluded on trustworthiness grounds — including absence of prospective trial registration and possible data fabrication — a finding that itself underscores the extent to which the add-on evidence base has been contaminated by commercially motivated research misconduct [13]. The remaining 85 trustworthy trials were pooled, and the findings were unambiguous: most add-ons are not proven to benefit patients undergoing IVF [13].

     The following subsections review the evidence for specific add-ons of particular policy relevance, drawing on the Lensen 2026 meta-analysis, the HFEA ratings, and other high-quality sources.

4.2. Time-Lapse Imaging (TLI)

     Time-lapse imaging involves continuous digital monitoring of developing embryos within the incubator, with images captured every five to fifteen minutes, enabling embryologists to assess morphokinetic variables without disturbing the embryo culture environment. TLI systems are marketed on the basis of two purported benefits: undisturbed culture conditions and improved embryo selection through algorithmic analysis of developmental patterns. Despite widespread commercial adoption and significant cost to patients, the evidence for TLI is definitively negative.

     The landmark Time-Lapse Imaging Trial (TILT), a multicentre, three-arm, double-blind, randomized controlled trial published in The Lancet in 2024, enrolled 1,575 participants across seven IVF centres in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong [16]. Live birth rates were 33.7% in the TLI group, 36.6% in the undisturbed culture group, and 33.0% in the standard care group, with no statistically significant differences between any of the three arms (adjusted odds ratio for TLI versus control: 1.04; 97.5% CI 0.73–1.47) [16]. The trial authors concluded that "offering TLI to patients and health-care providers with the expectation of improved outcomes cannot be justified" [16]. The HFEA rates TLI as black, indicating that moderate to high-quality evidence demonstrates it has no effect on treatment outcomes [7]. Time-lapse imaging should therefore be explicitly excluded from co-funded IVF cycles and, given the strength of evidence against it, the MOH should consider whether its continued commercial sale as a fee-paying add-on is ethically justifiable.

4.3. Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A)

     PGT-A involves biopsying embryos at the blastocyst stage to screen for chromosomal abnormalities (aneuploidies) before transfer. It is marketed as a tool to improve implantation rates, reduce miscarriage, and shorten the time to a successful pregnancy by selecting only euploid (chromosomally normal) embryos for transfer. PGT-A is one of the most expensive add-ons, with costs that can add several thousand dollars to the price of an IVF cycle.

     The evidence for PGT-A as a routine screening tool for all IVF patients is, however, highly contested. The ASRM's 2024 Practice Committee opinion concluded that the value of PGT-A as a routine screening test for all IVF patients has not been demonstrated [17]. The Lensen 2026 meta-analysis found no statistically significant effect of PGT-A on live birth rates (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.91–1.47; p=0.23; moderate certainty) [13]. The HFEA rates PGT-A as red for improving the chances of a live birth for most fertility patients [7]. This red rating reflects several concerns: PGT-A reduces the number of embryos available for transfer by discarding those classified as aneuploid; inaccurate results can lead to the erroneous discarding of mosaic embryos that might have developed into healthy babies; and the procedure adds significant cost and invasiveness without a proven benefit in live birth rates for the general IVF population [7]. PGT-A should generally be excluded from co-funded IVF cycles. Its use should be restricted to specific, evidence-based clinical indications — such as couples with repeated IVF failures or a history of recurrent pregnancy loss attributable to chromosomal causes.

4.4. Endometrial Receptivity Testing (ERA)

     The Endometrial Receptivity Array (ERA) test involves a biopsy of the uterine lining to assess gene expression patterns and determine the patient's "window of implantation," with the aim of personalizing the timing of embryo transfer. The ERA test is marketed heavily to patients who have experienced repeated implantation failure, with claims that a "displaced" implantation window is a common and correctable cause of failure.

     The evidence for ERA does not support these claims. The Lensen 2026 meta-analysis found no clear evidence of benefit from endometrial receptivity testing on live birth rates, based on three trustworthy trials of moderate certainty [13]. The HFEA rates ERA as red, reflecting evidence that it may not improve and could potentially reduce the effectiveness of IVF treatment [7]. NICE's 2025 draft guidelines explicitly advise against ERA testing as a pre-treatment add-on before embryo transfer [15]. ERA testing should be excluded from co-funded IVF cycles, and its routine commercial offering to patients without a specific clinical indication should be discouraged.

4.5. Immunological Treatments: IVIG, Intralipid, and Corticosteroids

     A range of immunological treatments are marketed to IVF patients, particularly those who have experienced recurrent implantation failure, on the basis that immune dysregulation may be preventing embryo implantation. These include intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), intralipid infusions, and corticosteroids (glucocorticoids).

     Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is rated red by the HFEA, not only because evidence of benefit is lacking but because of documented safety concerns, including anaphylactic reactions, transmission of blood-borne pathogens, and haemolytic anaemia [7]. The Lensen 2026 meta-analysis did not include IVIG among its ten reviewed add-ons, but the HFEA's safety concerns are sufficient to warrant its exclusion from co-funded cycles and strong regulatory discouragement of its routine commercial use.

     Intralipid infusions are rated grey by the HFEA, indicating insufficient high-quality evidence to draw conclusions [7]. The Lensen 2026 meta-analysis found the evidence for intralipid to be unclear due to the scarcity and very low quality of available data (one trial; very-low certainty) [13]. Intralipid should be excluded from co-funded cycles pending robust RCT evidence.

     Corticosteroids are rated red by the HFEA [7] and were found by the Lensen 2026 meta-analysis to have no effect on live birth rates (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.70–1.27; p=0.71; moderate certainty) [13]. Corticosteroids should be excluded from co-funded cycles.

4.6. Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP)

     Platelet-rich plasma injections — either into the ovaries (intraovarian PRP) or the uterus (intrauterine PRP) — are emerging add-ons marketed as treatments for diminished ovarian reserve and thin endometrium, respectively. Both are rated red by the HFEA [7]. The Lensen 2026 meta-analysis found the evidence for both forms of PRP to be unclear due to the very low quality and scarcity of available data (one trial for intraovarian PRP; two trials for intrauterine PRP; very-low certainty for both) [13]. PRP in both forms should be excluded from co-funded cycles.

4.7. Add-ons with Weak Evidence of Possible Benefit

     The Lensen 2026 meta-analysis identified three add-ons for which there is weak evidence of possible benefit: EmbryoGlue, endometrial scratching, and physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PICSI) [13].

     EmbryoGlue is an embryo transfer medium enriched with hyaluronic acid, a natural substance found in the reproductive tract. The meta-analysis found it may increase the probability of pregnancy and live birth (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.91–1.37; p=0.29; low certainty), though the effect on live birth rates was not statistically robust [13]. Given the low cost and minimal invasiveness of EmbryoGlue relative to other add-ons, and the biological plausibility of its mechanism, the MOH could consider incorporating it as a standard component of co-funded embryo transfer procedures, pending further high-quality RCT evidence.

     Endometrial scratching is a minor procedure in which the uterine lining is deliberately scratched with a small catheter in the cycle preceding IVF, purportedly to stimulate an inflammatory response that enhances implantation. The meta-analysis found it might be associated with a small increase in the chance of live birth (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.02–1.41; p=0.02; moderate certainty) [13]. However, the HFEA rates endometrial scratching as yellow (conflicting evidence) [7], and NICE's 2025 draft guidelines advise against it as a routine pre-treatment add-on [15]. The MOH should not include endometrial scratching in co-funded cycles at this stage, but should monitor the emerging evidence, particularly for patients with a history of repeated implantation failure.

     PICSI is a sperm selection technique based on the ability of sperm to bind to hyaluronic acid, which may indicate maturity and fertilization competence. The meta-analysis found weak evidence that PICSI may lower the risk of miscarriage, though its effect on live birth rates was unclear (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.98–1.29; p=0.16; low certainty) [13]. The HFEA rates PICSI as black for improving live birth rates [7]. PICSI should not be included in co-funded cycles, though its use may be appropriate in specific clinical contexts such as recurrent miscarriage.

4.8. Acupuncture

     Acupuncture is widely offered as a complementary add-on in IVF, with claims of reducing stress and improving implantation. The Lensen 2026 meta-analysis found the evidence for acupuncture to be unclear due to the very low quality of available data (ten trials; very-low certainty) [13]. The HFEA rates acupuncture as grey [7]. Acupuncture should not be included in co-funded cycles.

     The table below summarizes the HFEA ratings and Lensen 2026 meta-analysis findings for the add-ons discussed, together with the recommended policy position for the proposed co-funding scheme.

5. Recommended Safeguards for Implementation

5.1. Mandatory Exclusion of Unproven Add-ons from Co-funded Packages

     The MOH must issue explicit regulatory guidance specifying that government co-funding applies exclusively to a defined package of evidence-based, standard-of-care IVF procedures. The co-funded package must be clearly delineated in the tender contract, with any deviation constituting a breach of the co-funding agreement. Clinics must be prohibited from bundling add-ons into the co-funded package or presenting add-ons as standard components of treatment.

5.2. Restriction of Potentially Harmful Add-ons to Research Settings

     Add-ons rated red by the HFEA — including IVIG, PGT-A for routine use, ERA testing, corticosteroids, and PRP — should be restricted to use within approved clinical research protocols, under which patients are not charged for participation. This approach, recommended by Wrigley and colleagues in their ethical analysis of add-on exploitation [14], ensures that the development of evidence for potentially promising interventions is not impeded, while protecting patients from being charged for unproven procedures. The ESHRE Add-ons Working Group's 2023 good practice recommendations similarly advocate that add-ons lacking sufficient evidence should only be offered within research settings [18].

5.3. Mandatory Transparent Counseling and Informed Consent

     All private clinics participating in the co-funding scheme must be required to provide patients with transparent, evidence-based information about any add-on they are considering, including its HFEA rating, the quality of available evidence, the estimated cost, and any known risks. This information must be provided in writing, in plain language, at a dedicated counseling session separate from the treatment consultation, to minimize the influence of the clinical relationship on patient decision-making. The University of Melbourne's evidence-based patient information website on IVF add-ons, shown in a 2026 RCT to improve patient understanding of add-on evidence, could serve as a model for a Singapore-specific patient information resource [13].

5.4. Mandatory National ART Registry and Independent Auditing

     The MOH should establish a mandatory national ART registry, requiring all licensed AR centres — both public and private — to submit standardized outcome data for every treatment cycle, including patient age, diagnosis, treatment protocol, add-ons used, and pregnancy and live birth outcomes. This registry would serve as the basis for the annual independent audits of private clinic performance required for co-funding accreditation, and would also generate the population-level data needed to monitor the impact of the co-funding scheme on national fertility outcomes. The registry should be modeled on the HFEA register in the United Kingdom and the NPESU annual report in Australia, both of which have demonstrated the feasibility and value of comprehensive national ART data collection [12].

5.5. Periodic Review and Adaptive Regulation

     The evidence base for IVF add-ons is rapidly evolving, and the regulatory framework must be designed to adapt accordingly. The MOH should establish a standing expert advisory committee, comprising reproductive medicine specialists, biostatisticians, health economists, patient advocates, and bioethicists, tasked with reviewing the evidence for add-ons on an annual basis and updating the list of permitted, restricted, and banned procedures accordingly. This committee should draw on the latest guidance from the HFEA, ASRM, ESHRE, and other reputable professional bodies, as well as emerging evidence from high-quality RCTs.

6. Broader Policy Considerations

6.1. Opportunity Cost and Healthcare Equity

     Any extension of government co-funding to private IVF must be evaluated against the opportunity cost of diverting public resources from life-threatening conditions. Singapore's public healthcare budget is finite, and subsidizing fertility treatment at private clinics — which are inherently profit-driven enterprises — raises legitimate questions about healthcare equity and resource allocation [19]. The MOH should conduct a rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the proposed co-funding scheme with alternative uses of the same public funds, including expanding capacity at public AR centres, investing in preventive health measures that address the root causes of infertility, and funding research into novel fertility treatments.

6.2. The Limited Demographic Impact of IVF

     It is important that the co-funding extension is not oversold as a solution to Singapore's demographic crisis. IVF is a treatment for infertility, not a tool for boosting the birth rate among the general population. In Australia, where IVF is heavily subsidized through Medicare, approximately one in eighteen babies (5.5%) is born through ART — a significant contribution, but insufficient to compensate for the broader decline in fertility rates driven by social, economic, and cultural factors [12]. Singapore's experience with pronatalist policies more broadly suggests that financial incentives alone have limited effectiveness in reversing fertility decline [20]. The co-funding extension should therefore be framed as a measure to improve equitable access to fertility treatment for couples who genuinely need it, rather than as a demographic panacea.

6.3. Preventing Perverse Incentives

     The proposed model must be carefully designed to prevent perverse incentives. Linking co-funding accreditation to live birth rates creates a risk that clinics will engage in patient selection, preferentially accepting younger patients with better prognoses to maintain their audited success rates while rejecting older or more complex patients. To mitigate this, success rate benchmarks must be stratified by patient age and diagnosis, and the MOH should monitor referral patterns to detect evidence of discriminatory patient selection. Additionally, the co-funding scheme should include provisions to ensure that patients with complex medical needs are not disadvantaged by the competitive tender model.

7. Conclusion

     Singapore's demographic crisis demands bold and innovative policy responses, and the extension of government co-funding to private IVF clinics represents a potentially valuable measure to improve access to fertility treatment for couples who face long waits in the public system. However, the risks of such an extension are substantial and must be managed with rigorous regulatory safeguards [21]. The competitive public tender procurement model proposed in this white paper — combining price caps, performance-based accreditation, mandatory outcome auditing, and strict regulation of add-ons — provides a framework that could deliver genuine clinical value while protecting public funds from misallocation.

     The most critical safeguard concerns the regulation of IVF add-ons. The evidence is now unambiguous: the majority of add-ons currently marketed to IVF patients lack robust evidence of benefit, and several are associated with potential harm. The landmark Lensen 2026 meta-analysis [13], the HFEA traffic light ratings [7], the ASRM's 2024 committee opinion on PGT-A [17], and NICE's 2025 draft guidelines [15] all point in the same direction: patients are being exploited by the commercial sale of unproven procedures at a time of profound emotional and physical vulnerability. The Singapore government has both the opportunity and the responsibility to prevent this exploitation by establishing a co-funding framework that is explicitly limited to evidence-based care, that restricts unproven add-ons to research settings, and that mandates transparent, evidence-based counseling for all patients.

     By drawing on the lessons of international experience — from Australia's Medicare-funded ART model to the United Kingdom's HFEA regulatory framework — and by adapting Singapore's own proven procurement and public-private partnership models, the MOH can design a co-funding scheme that serves the genuine interests of infertile couples, upholds the principles of evidence-based medicine, and ensures the prudent stewardship of public resources.

References

1. Ang HM. Singapore's fertility rate drops to historic low of 0.87 as country faces 'existential challenge': DPM Gan. Channel News Asia [Internet]. 2026 Feb 26 [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/total-fertility-rate-tfr-2025-record-low-citizen-population-5954306

2. Ministry of Health Singapore. Marriage and Parenthood Schemes [Internet]. Singapore: MOH; 2026 [updated 2026 Mar 17; cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.moh.gov.sg/managing-expenses/schemes-and-subsidies/marriage-and-parenthood-schemes/

3. Select Surrogacy India. Best IVF Centre in Singapore – Complete Guide to Clinics, Costs, and Success Rates [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://selectsurrogacyindia.com/best-ivf-centre-in-singapore/

4. Ministry of Health Singapore. Extension of Co-Funding for the Assisted Conception Procedures Scheme to Private Clinic. Parliamentary QA [Internet]. 2023 Mar 20 [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.moh.gov.sg/newsroom/extension-of-co-funding-for-the-assisted-conception-procedures-scheme-to-private-clinics/

5. Chin AHB. Issues to consider in co-funding private IVF treatment. The Straits Times Forum [Internet]. 2024 Feb 26 [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/forum/forum-issues-to-consider-in-co-funding-private-ivf-treatment

6. Chin AHB. Singapore Government Co-funding and Subsidies for Private IVF Treatment: A Policy Risk Assessment White Paper. Springer Nature Communities [Internet]. 2026 Apr [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://communities.springernature.com/videos/singapore-government-co-funding-and-subsidies-for-private-ivf-treatment-a-policy-risk-assessment-white-paper

7. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Treatment add-ons with limited evidence [Internet]. London: HFEA; 2023 [updated 2023 Oct 16; cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/treatment-add-ons/

8. Ministry of Finance Singapore. Government Procurement: Procurement Processes [Internet]. Singapore: MOF; 2025 [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.mof.gov.sg/policies/government-procurement/procurement-processes/

9. Land Transport Authority Singapore. Certificate of Entitlement (COE) [Internet]. Singapore: LTA; 2025 [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://onemotoring.lta.gov.sg/content/onemotoring/home/buying/upfront-vehicle-costs/certificate-of-entitlement--coe-.html

10. Chambers GM, Sullivan EA, Ishihara O, Chapman MG, Adamson GD. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertility and Sterility. 2009;91(6):2281-2294. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.129

11. Ministry of Health Singapore. Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) [Internet]. Singapore: MOH; 2025 [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.moh.gov.sg/managing-expenses/schemes-and-subsidies/chas/

12. National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit. Annual Registry Reports [Internet]. Sydney: UNSW; 2024 [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.unsw.edu.au/research/npesu/annual-reports

13. Lensen S, Wilkinson J, Steeper M, Melo P, Kamath MS, Craciunas L, Wang R, Jordan V, Showell M, Attinger S, Afroz A, van Wely M, Farquhar C. Safety and effectiveness of ten common in-vitro fertilisation add-ons: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Obstet Gynaecol Womens Health. 2026 Jun 23. doi: 10.1016/S3050-5038(26)00054-3

14. Wrigley A, Watts G, Lipworth W, Newson AJ. Hope and Exploitation in Commercial Provision of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Hastings Center Report. 2023 Nov 14;53(5):30-41. doi: 10.1002/hast.1513

15. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Inducing labour. [Internet]. London: NICE; 2021 Nov 4 [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng207

16. Bhide P, Chan DYL, Lanz D, Alqawasmeh O, Barry E, Baxter D, Gonzalez Carreras F, Choudhury Y, Cheong Y, Chung JPW, Collins B, Cong L, Doidge S, Heighway J, Patel D, Pardo MC, Rattos A, Wright A, Dodds J, Perez T, Khan KS, Thangaratinam S. Clinical effectiveness and safety of time-lapse imaging systems for embryo incubation and selection in in-vitro fertilisation treatment (TILT): a multicentre, three-parallel-group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2024;404(10449):256-265. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00816-X

17. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility. 2024. Available from: https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/practice-committee-documents/the-use-of-preimplantation-genetic-testing-for-aneuploidy-a-committee-opinion-2024/

18. Matorras R, Blockeel C, Bosch E, Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka M, Lemos C, Moffett A, Polyzos NP, Somigliana E, Strandell A, Vermeulen N, Wyns C. Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine. Human Reproduction. 2023;38(11):2062-2104. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dead184

19. Seixas BV, Regier DA, Bryan S, Mitton C. Describing practices of priority setting and resource allocation in publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Jan 27;21(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06078-z

20. Tan PL. Lessons from Singapore on Raising Fertility Rates. IMF Finance & Development [Internet]. 2020 Mar [cited 2026 Jul 1];57(1). Available from: https://www.imf.org/en/publications/fandd/issues/2020/03/lessons-from-singapore-on-raising-fertility-rates-tan

21. Chin AHB. Singapore should beware of the pitfalls of subsidizing private IVF treatment. BioEdge [Internet]. 2024 Feb 29 [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://bioedge.org/beginning-of-life-issues/ivf/singapore-should-beware-of-the-pitfalls-of-subsidizing-private-ivf-treatment/