BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2531 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 5, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Jim Wood, Chair AB 2531 (Burke) - As Introduced February 19, 2016 SUBJECT: Reproductive health and research. SUMMARY: Repeals the ban on compensation for women providing human oocytes (eggs) for research, and instead allows a woman providing eggs for research to be compensated for her time, discomfort, and inconvenience in the same manner as other research subjects. Specifically, this bill: 1)Prohibits payment received for providing eggs for research from being for the eggs themselves, or predicated on the number obtained, including if none are obtained. 2)Requires the proposed compensation amount to be determined by a human subject research panel or institutional review board (IRB). 3)Specifies, in the event that a human subject research panel or IRB determines that a proposed compensation amount is inappropriate, the panel or board to determine an appropriate compensation amount. AB 2531 Page 2 4)Requires the IRB, if a woman is compensated for providing eggs for the purpose of infertility treatment, and any eggs or embryos in excess of those needed for fertility are offered for research, to disregard the amount of compensation if all of the following conditions are met: a) The clinic performing egg retrieval is a member of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; b) The procurement and disposition for research purposes of eggs initially provided for reproductive uses, either for use by the donor or another woman, shall not knowingly compromise the optimal reproductive success of the woman in the infertility treatment; c) The infertility treatment protocol is established prior to requesting or obtaining consent for donation for research purposes and the prospect of donation for research does not alter the timing, method, or procedures selected for clinical care; d) The woman in infertility treatment makes the determination that she does not want or need the eggs for her own reproductive success; and, e) The donation of eggs for research is done without valuable consideration. Valuable consideration does not include reasonable payment for the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, and storage of eggs or embryos. 5)Makes various legislative findings and declarations, stating that concerns that women will be exploited if compensated for AB 2531 Page 3 providing human eggs for research have not been borne out in the states where compensation is allowed, and that sufficient protections are in place to treat women providing human eggs for research, similar to any other research subject, and that women are competent and able to make decisions for themselves. EXISTING LAW: 1)Defines "oocyte" as a female egg or egg cell of a human female, and defines "assisted oocyte production" (AOP) as surgical extraction of oocytes following pharmaceutically induced manipulation of oocyte production through the use of ovarian stimulation. 2)Prohibits any payment in excess of the amount of reimbursement of direct expenses incurred as a result of the procedure to be made to any subject to encourage her to produce human eggs for purposes of medical research. 3)Prohibits any human egg or embryo from being acquired, sold, offered for sale, received, or otherwise transferred for valuable consideration for the purposes of medical research or development of medical therapies. 4)Requires a physician, prior to providing AOP for the purposes of medical research, to obtain written and oral informed consent for the procedure from the subject, and requires this informed consent to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act (Act), as specified. AB 2531 Page 4 5)Requires a physician, prior to obtaining informed consent from a subject for AOP for the purpose of procuring eggs for research, to provide to the subject a standardized medically accurate written summary of health and consumer issues associated with AOP. Requires this summary to include medically accurate disclosures concerning the potential risks of AOP, including the risks associated with the surgical procedure and with using the drugs, medications, and hormones prescribed for ovarian stimulation during the AOP process. 6)Requires an IRB to require research programs or projects under its review that involve AOP to comply with certain requirements, including that the research program perform psychological and physical screening for all subjects, and that subjects be given a post-procedure medical examination. 7)Requires a research program that involves AOP to ensure that a written record is maintained that includes specified components, including the demographics of subjects, information regarding every egg that has been donated or used, and a record of all adverse health outcomes resulting from the AOP. 8)Prohibits a physician performing the AOP from having a financial interest in the outcome of the research. 9)Establishes the Act, which provides various statutory protections for Californians involved in medical experiments, including a detailed requirement for what constitutes AB 2531 Page 5 voluntary informed consent, and includes penalties for violations of this Act. 10)Establishes, in the California Constitution, via the passage of Proposition 71 in 2004, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), to provide $3 billion in bond funding over a period of 10 years to fund stem cell research. Requires the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee of CIRM to establish certain standards for the use of the funds provided by the Act, including a prohibition against compensation to donors or participants of the research, beyond reimbursement of expenses. FISCAL EFFECT: None. COMMENTS: 1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, this bill promotes medical research in California while ensuring research participants are fairly treated by removing the prohibition on compensation for women participating in egg donation for medical research. The author states that we all benefit from those willing to participate in research, and the current processes in place are designed to appropriately reward participants, while protecting them from abusive or coercive practices. The author notes that this bill ensures that women are treated equally to all other research subjects - allowing them to actively evaluate their participation in research studies and be paid for their time, trouble, and AB 2531 Page 6 inconvenience when they do participate. The author continues, given that compensation is allowed in 47 other states, and there is no evidence of abuse, it's time to reconsider our ban, just as New York did. Lifting the ban will allow women providing eggs, just as any other research subject, to make an informed decision as to participation, and justly compensate them for doing so. The author concludes we should no longer deny a woman's fundamental ability to make informed decisions or think for herself, or tell her if she wants to participate, she can only participate on terms different than for any other procedure. 2)BACKGROUND. a) Egg production, retrieval, and donation. Over the past two decades, millions of women have had eggs collected for the purpose of assisted reproduction. Most of these were women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) with their own eggs; however, a significant minority were donating their eggs to help other women get pregnant. In the egg donation process, hormones are used to basically trick the body into producing many mature eggs, instead of the normal single egg per menstrual cycle. The donation process involves the woman self-injecting a mix of hormones over the span of a month that stimulate the growth of ovarian follicles, stop the normal ovulation cycle, and affect egg maturation. When the eggs are ready, the woman is brought into surgery, where she receives intravenous sedation, and the eggs are harvested via needle aspiration. A woman who has undergone the usual hormone treatment will have a dozen or so eggs that can be collected. b) Compensation of egg donors. Under California law, the prohibition against compensation to egg donors applies only to donors for research purposes, not to assist someone else AB 2531 Page 7 in getting pregnant. According to a March 2010 report by the Hastings Center, a research institution focusing on bioethics, entitled "Self-Regulation, Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte Donors," the fertility industry in the United States relies heavily on self-regulation, which generally takes the form of guidelines issued by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM, the sponsor of this bill) and its affiliated organization, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The report looked at egg donor recruitment advertisements on college campuses, and found that nearly half offered compensation that exceeded recommended levels. The average compensation offered was approximately $9,000, with a maximum offer of $50,000. The oocyte donor compensation guidelines of the ASRM, adopted in 2007, state that compensation should be structured to acknowledge the time, inconvenience, and discomfort associated with the process, and should not vary according to the planned use of the eggs, the number or quality retrieved, or the donor's ethnic or other personal characteristics. The guidelines stated that total payments to donors in excess of $5,000 require justification, and sums above $10,000 are not appropriate. According to the author, besides California, only Massachusetts and South Dakota specifically prohibit compensation for egg donors. c) Institutional Review Boards. An IRB is a committee that has been formally designated to approve, monitor, and review biomedical and behavioral research involving humans conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated. IRBs are regulated by the federal Office AB 2531 Page 8 for Human Research Protection, and are required to have at least five members, including at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution. IRBs have the authority to approve, require modifications in, or disapprove all research activities under its review. Under California law, regarding any research project involving AOP, the IRB is required to ensure that the research program comply with specified requirements, including the following: i) That the research program provide the subject with an objective and accurate statement about the existing state of the research for which the subject is providing oocytes; ii) That the research program performs psychological and physical screening for all subjects prior to the oocyte retrieval procedure; iii) That the research program ensures, after conducting AOP retrieval on a subject, that the subject be given a post-procedure medical examination at a time within the standard of care to determine if the subject has experienced an adverse health effect that is a result of the procedure, and to inform the subject of the right to a second opinion if she has any medical concerns; iv) That the research program ensures that the subject has access to and coverage for medically appropriate medical care that is required as a direct result of the procedure, and to ensure that payment or coverage of resulting expenses is provided at no cost to the subject; and, AB 2531 Page 9 v) That the research program provides disclosure if the physician and his or her immediate family members have any professional interest in the outcome of the research or of the oocyte retrieval procedure. d) Institute of Medicine Report. Following passage of Proposition 71 in 2004, CIRM asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council to convene a committee of experts to ascertain the medical risks of oocyte donation for stem cell research. A workshop was convened in 2006, and issued a report in 2007 entitled "Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research" (IOM Report). According to the IOM Report, years of experience with assisted reproduction have identified a number of potential risks associated with egg donation, falling into three main categories: i) the potential risks arising from the hormone regimen that women are given to stimulate egg production, including ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS), problems with long-term fertility, breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers; ii) the risks associated with the surgical procedure, including the anesthesia, which involves many of the same issues that anyone having surgery faces; and, iii), the potential risks that are psychological in nature, including anxiety, mood swings, and post-donation adjustment. However, the IOM Report stated that there was a need for more and better data. According to the report, one of the most striking facts about IVF is just how little is known for sure about the long-term health outcomes for the women who undergo the procedures. The IOM Report notes that there are no registries that track the health of the people who have taken part, and without such registries to draw from, most of the studies have focused on relatively small groups of people. The IOM Report did acknowledge that the available data come primarily from IVF patients and not AB 2531 Page 10 from healthy subjects, yet it is healthy women and not those coping with infertility who will be donating eggs for research, which raises the possibility that the existing data overstates the potential risks for healthy donors. The bottom line, according to the IOM Report, is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the potential health risks for egg donation. e) National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research state that women who undergo hormonal induction to generate eggs specifically for research purposes should be reimbursed only for direct expenses incurred as a result of the procedure, as determined by an IRB. The Guidelines go on to state that "no payments beyond reimbursements, cash or in-kind, should be provided for donating oocytes for research purposes. Similarly, no payments beyond reimbursements should be made for donations of sperm for research purposes." When developing the 2010 amendments to these guidelines (the most recent update), NAS noted that since the prior update in 2008, the ethics committee of the State of New York's Empire State Stem Cell Board adopted a resolution allowing New York State-funded stem cell researchers to compensate women who donate their eggs directly and solely to research for the time, risk, and burden involved in donating. Amounts of compensation are to be comparable to those received by women in New York State for similar donations for reproductive purposes. NAS stated that while it "acknowledges that the circumstances surrounding the issue of compensation to oocyte donors continues to evolve, it chose not to change the National Academies' Guidelines." NAS went on to state that while it was leaving its guideline on no payments in place, it recognized that "other states and entities may choose to set their own policies, as New York has done." f) Research using donated eggs. Embryonic stem cells are a AB 2531 Page 11 unique discovery with the power to unlock causes of and treatments for many human illnesses. Diseases and disabilities such as heart disease, spinal cord injuries, juvenile diabetes (Type I diabetes), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease), Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease afflict millions of Americans. These are some of the most debilitating diseases known to modern medicine in that they often severely limit the activity of the affected individual, cause painful degeneration of normal bodily functions, bring on premature death, and cause immense suffering for the individual and his or her family. Potential benefits of embryo research include an improved understanding of fertilization, implantation, and early pregnancy biology and, with this understanding, possibly fewer undesired outcomes, such as miscarriage. For infertile couples, embryo research offers the possibility of more effective therapies: research efforts helped optimize conditions for intracytoplasmic sperm injection, embryo culture, and cryopreservation, for example. For others at risk for heritable genetic disease who feel pregnancy termination is undesirable or inappropriate, embryo research has led to the possibility of early, accurate genetic diagnosis. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis provides diagnostic results at a point before implantation, so pregnancy termination can be avoided. In addition to these benefits of embryo research in general, stem cell research promises additional potential benefits, for such work may lead both to a better understanding of the processes leading to tissue differentiation and function and to possible therapies by creating lines that can replace diseased or nonfunctioning tissues. 3)SUPPORT. ASRM is the sponsor of this bill and states, in the United States and California there is a fundamental principle that all research participants deserve just compensation for their contribution to research that entails some risk and much AB 2531 Page 12 time, trouble, and inconvenience. ASRM contends the lack of compensation deters participants and stalls research. The sponsor notes, women considering ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval are capable of informed decision making as to the risks of compensated participation in research, just as they do for now for fertility. ASRM concludes that fairness requires research participants receive the same compensation fertility donors presently receive, and allowing compensation for fertility purposes while banning it for research serves a false value, subordinating research to fertility. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX - California (ACOG) writes that all other research subjects are compensated for their time, trouble, and inconvenience related to participating in research, except for this population. ACOG notes that this bill ensures that women are treated equal to all other research subjects - allowing them to actively evaluate their participation in research studies. The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) asserts that only through research - through translating science from the laboratory to clinical practice - can treatment options and patient outcomes be improved. NCLR states that without compensation for oocyte donations, few women participate in research, creating barriers to reproductive and other biomedical research that could benefit all women. NCLR concludes a lack of fertility research affect LGBT people in particular because assisted reproduction is essential for many LGBT people to become parents and build families. 4)OPPOSITION. The Center for Genetics and Society (CGS) is opposed to this bill stating, that women providing eggs are not research subjects, and egg retrieval is very different from a clinical trial. CGS notes that, in clinical trial, investigators study the reactions and health outcomes of subjects who take a drug, use a device, or undergo a procedure, however, in the case of egg harvesting, AB 2531 Page 13 investigators are not studying, or seeking to understand the effects of the procedures on women. CGS also notes that many experts remain concerned about the long-term risks of these drugs, especially their potential impact on infertility and various cancers, and that follow-up research on egg providers, which could establish the frequency and severity of these adverse outcomes, and best protocols for avoiding them, is widely recognized to be grossly inadequate. CGS also references the IOM report, "Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research (2006)," and that it concluded that one of the striking facts about ovarian stimulation is just how little is known about long-term health outcomes for women. We Are Egg Donors indicates that with no provisions in this bill to protect the health of women who would be providing these oocytes, based on their collective experiences as egg providers, they feel it would be imprudent to pass this bill because women cannot give informed consent when there is a lack of information about the risks. The California Catholic Conference, Inc. opposes this bill stating that it would put women's health in jeopardy by creating and, in effect, result in a marketing dynamic designed to exploit women who are most in need of resources - including college students, immigrants, and women with economic challenges. 5)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION. a) AB 926 (Bonilla), vetoed by Governor Brown in 2013, was substantially similar to this bill. AB 926 would have lifted the prohibition on compensation for egg donations for medical research, and would have established guidelines for the use of IRBs relative to egg donations and compensation. Governor Brown's veto message read: AB 2531 Page 14 Not everything in life is for sale nor should it be. This bill would legalize the payment of money in exchange for a woman submitting to invasive procedures to stimulate, extract and harvest her eggs for scientific research. The questions raised here are not simple; they touch matters that are both personal and philosophical. In medical procedures of this kind, genuinely informed consent is difficult because the long-term risks are not adequately known. Putting thousands of dollars on the table only compounds the problem. Six years ago the Legislature, by near unanimity, enacted the prohibition that this bill now seeks to reverse. After careful review of the materials which both supporters and opponents submitted, I do not find sufficient reason to change course. AB 2531 Page 15 I am returning this bill without my signature. b) AB 1317 (Block), Chapter 523, Statutes of 2009, required that all advertisements for egg donations for fertility (non-research) purposes to include a warning that there is a screening process, that not all potential donors are selected, and that not all selected donors receive the compensation amount advertised. AB 1313also requires the advertisement to include a warning that there may be risks involved, and required egg donors for fertility purposes to be provided with the same risk information required to be provided to donors for research purposes, and to comply with the same informed consent requirements. c) SB 1260 (Ortiz), Chapter 483, Statutes of 2006, establishes various requirements related to the donation of eggs for research. The prohibition against compensating donors beyond reimbursement of direct costs, which this bill is seeking to repeal, was among the provisions established by SB 1260. 6)POLICY COMMENT. In 2013 the Governor vetoed AB 926 which included similar provisions to those contained in this bill. The Committee may wish to ask the author her plans to address the Governor's veto message. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support AB 2531 Page 16 American Society for Reproductive Medicine (sponsor) American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX - California California Chronic Care Coalition California Cryobank Equality California Fertile Action National Center for Lesbian Rights RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association Opposition California Catholic Conference, Inc. California Right to Life Committee, Inc. Center for Genetics and Society We Are Egg Donors Several individuals Analysis Prepared by:Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 AB 2531 Page 17