J Trussell1, E Wiebe, T Shochet, E Guilbert. 1. Office of Population Research, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA. trussell@princeton.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate cost savings from emergency contraceptive pills in Canada. METHODS: We modeled cost savings when a single emergency contraceptive treatment was provided after unprotected intercourse and when women were provided emergency contraceptive pills in advance. RESULTS: Each dollar spent on a single treatment saved $1.19--$2.35 (in Canadian currency), depending on the regimen and on assumptions about savings from costs avoided by preventing mistimed births. The dedicated products Preven (Shire Canada, Inc., Oakville, Ontario) and Plan B (Paladin Labs, Inc., Montreal) were cost-saving even under the least favorable assumption that mistimed births prevented today occur 2 years later. Each dollar spent on advance provision of Preven saved $1.24--$12.23, depending on the regular contraception method, on how consistently emergency contraception was used when needed, and on whether mistimed births were averted forever or simply delayed. Plan B was almost always cost-saving, although less so. CONCLUSION: Emergency contraception was cost-saving whether provided when the emergency occurred or in advance to be used as needed. More extensive use of emergency contraception could save considerable medical costs by reducing unintended pregnancies.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate cost savings from emergency contraceptive pills in Canada. METHODS: We modeled cost savings when a single emergency contraceptive treatment was provided after unprotected intercourse and when women were provided emergency contraceptive pills in advance. RESULTS: Each dollar spent on a single treatment saved $1.19--$2.35 (in Canadian currency), depending on the regimen and on assumptions about savings from costs avoided by preventing mistimed births. The dedicated products Preven (Shire Canada, Inc., Oakville, Ontario) and Plan B (Paladin Labs, Inc., Montreal) were cost-saving even under the least favorable assumption that mistimed births prevented today occur 2 years later. Each dollar spent on advance provision of Preven saved $1.24--$12.23, depending on the regular contraception method, on how consistently emergency contraception was used when needed, and on whether mistimed births were averted forever or simply delayed. Plan B was almost always cost-saving, although less so. CONCLUSION: Emergency contraception was cost-saving whether provided when the emergency occurred or in advance to be used as needed. More extensive use of emergency contraception could save considerable medical costs by reducing unintended pregnancies.