The recent closure of the CDC’s Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Monitoring Group has sent shockwaves through the reproductive health community. Experts and IVF advocates, who felt encouraged by President Donald Trump’s support for IVF, are particularly stunned by the unexpected decision, which comes amid widespread layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The ART group, consisting of six epidemiologists, data analysts, and researchers, was responsible for tracking IVF outcomes across the United States. The group’s dismantling has been criticized by reproductive health experts who view it as a significant setback, especially considering Trump’s outspoken endorsement of fertility treatment. Just a week before, at a White House event to celebrate Women’s History Month, Trump proudly called himself the “fertility president,” emphasizing his commitment to expanding IVF access.

Barbara Collura, president and CEO of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, expressed her disappointment, stating that the group was an essential resource for tackling infertility issues and advocating for broader insurance coverage of IVF. She noted that the shutdown was a significant blow to the administration’s IVF agenda. Aaron Levine, a public policy professor at Georgia Tech, called it a “devastating loss” for patients seeking informed choices regarding their fertility treatment.

For over four decades, IVF has been the cornerstone of fertility treatments, with more than 8 million babies born through the procedure since the late 1970s. Despite its popularity, success rates vary, and factors such as age play a crucial role. Women under 35 have a 46% success rate, which drops to 22% by age 38, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Levine emphasized that patients need access to success rates for individual clinics to make informed decisions. The CDC’s ART group provided this vital data, offering patients a way to compare clinics and determine which may offer the best chances of success. “Knowing the success rates helps patients feel more in control of their treatment decisions,” Levine explained.

Additionally, the CDC group monitored the safety of IVF procedures, ensuring that complications such as multiple births or premature births were tracked. This oversight was crucial for improving the overall quality of care in IVF clinics. Levine also pointed out that this data held clinics accountable, motivating them to improve their practices for better patient outcomes.

The group also provided tools for the public, including a “success estimator” that allowed individuals to input personal information and estimate their chances of IVF success. This feature was a valuable resource for prospective patients looking to navigate the complex world of fertility treatments.

Despite the closure, some argue that other organizations, such as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, continue to monitor IVF outcomes. However, critics note that the data from these groups is not as comprehensive, leaving a gap in the availability of reliable information for patients.

A former CDC employee, who wished to remain anonymous, expressed confusion over the decision to disband the ART group, especially after Trump’s strong pro-IVF statements. “We were preparing to release new data on IVF success rates across the states,” the former employee said. “Now, that work has been halted indefinitely.”

A spokesperson for HHS emphasized that while the ART program was discontinued, the department remained committed to monitoring and advancing reproductive health initiatives, though they did not provide specific details on how they planned to continue IVF data collection.

Micah Hill, president of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, called the closure of the CDC group “dangerous and devastating,” stressing the invaluable expertise the staff brought to the table. Hill warned that dismantling such a critical resource could irreparably harm the U.S. public health system, which has long been a global leader in reproductive health research.

The dismantling of the ART group raises significant concerns about the future of IVF monitoring in the U.S., leaving many to question the long-term impact on patients’ access to accurate information and quality care.