Millions of pregnant women get the pitch through their OB-GYN: Put a bit of your newborn’s umbilical cord on ice, as a biological insurance policy. If your child one day faces cancer, diabetes or even autism, the precious stem cells in the cord blood could become a tailor-made cure.Many families are happy to pay for the assurance of a healthy future. More than two million umbilical cord samples sit in a handful of suburban warehouses across the country. It’s a lucrative business, with companies charging several thousand dollars upfront plus hundreds more every year thereafter. The industry has grown rapidly, bolstered by investments from medical device companies, hospital partnerships and endorsements from celebrities like Drew Barrymore and Chrissy Teigen.But the leading banks have consistently misled customers and doctors about the technology’s promise, an investigation by The New York Times found. Doctors rarely use cord blood anymore, thanks to advances that have made it easier to transplant adult stem cells. And the few parents who try to withdraw cord blood samples often find that they are unusable — either because their volume is too low or they have been contaminated with microbes.When the first cord blood banks opened three decades ago, doctors were optimistic about turning the stem cells, otherwise discarded as medical waste, into a powerful new treatment for patients with leukemia and other blood disorders. Private banks promised peace of mind for anxious parents-to-be, knowing the cells would be ready and waiting if their child ever got sick.That potential has not materialized. Just 19 stem-cell transplants using a child’s own cord blood have been reported since 2010, according to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Newer research has led many doctors to abandon cord blood in favor of adult stem cells.Yet private banks trumpet the cells’ lifesaving possibilities, and legions of their sales representatives peddle cord blood as if it were at the medical vanguard. They woo customers in hospital pregnancy classes and offer obstetricians free lunches, gift cards and payments of up to $700 for each sample.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

We’re reporting on the challenges that fertility clinics face as they store a growing number of frozen embryos.Across the United States, a growing number of families are paying to store embryos left over from fertility treatments. The New York Times is looking into how families make decisions about whether to continue paying for storage — and how clinics keep track of the one million or more embryos stored in liquid nitrogen tanks across the country.The Times is interested in connecting with patients and fertility clinic staff members about the challenges they face related to embryo storage.We will not publish any part of your response to this questionnaire without talking with you first. We will not share your contact information outside the Times newsroom, and we will use it only to reach out to you. If you would feel more comfortable sharing your story with us anonymously, please visit our tips page.

Patients have filed eight lawsuits against CooperSurgical, a major fertility company, which has recalled the faulty product.CooperSurgical, a major medical supply company, is facing a wave of lawsuits from patients who claim that one of its products destroyed embryos created with in vitro fertilization.Fertility clinics across the world used the product, a nutrient-rich liquid that helps fertilized eggs develop into embryos. This week federal regulators made public that the company had recalled three lots of the liquid, which was used by clinics in November and December. The number of affected patients is unclear, although experts estimated that it is in the thousands.On Thursday, a couple in Virginia filed a lawsuit against the company, the eighth in two months from families around the United States. Collectively, the patients say they lost more than 100 embryos that had bathed in the defective product, known as culture media.The plaintiffs claim that the three batches of media were missing a key nutrient, magnesium, a defect that stopped their embryos from developing and rendered them unusable.The company declined to comment on the lawsuits.The Food and Drug Administration posted a recall notice on Wednesday saying that nearly 1,000 bottles of culture media were affected, about half of which were purchased by clinics in the United States. The filing said that the company had notified affected clinics on Dec. 13, telling them that “performance issues may lead to impaired embryo development” and instructing customers to stop using the product.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Tell us about your IVF experience.As women have begun having babies later in life, the number of patients going through in vitro fertilization treatment has increased significantly.The medical treatment can be life-changing, but it also comes at a price, as some couples go deeply into debt to pay for medical care that health insurance does not always cover. Some research has questioned the effectiveness of newer aspects of fertility treatment, like genetic screenings, and some patients have filed lawsuits claiming that faulty chemicals destroyed their embryos. Private equity companies, seeing the industry’s rapid growth, have been buying up some of the country’s largest fertility clinics.The New York Times is looking to hear from readers who can share their recent experiences with in vitro fertilization treatment. Hearing from patients helps us better understand where we should focus our reporting.We will not publish any part of your response to this questionnaire without talking with you first. We will not share your contact information outside the Times newsroom, and we will use it only to reach out to you. If you’d feel more comfortable sharing your story with us anonymously, please visit our tips page.