Literature DB >> 18703437

Cost savings from the provision of specific methods of contraception in a publicly funded program.

Diana Greene Foster1, Daria P Rostovtseva, Claire D Brindis, M Antonia Biggs, Denis Hulett, Philip D Darney.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We examined the cost-effectiveness of contraceptive methods dispensed in 2003 to 955,000 women in Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care and Treatment), California's publicly funded family planning program.
METHODS: We estimated the number of pregnancies averted by each contraceptive method and compared the cost of providing each method with the savings from averted pregnancies.
RESULTS: More than half of the 178,000 averted pregnancies were attributable to oral contraceptives, one fifth to injectable methods, and one tenth each to the patch and barrier methods. The implant and intrauterine contraceptives were the most cost-effective, with cost savings of more than $7.00 for every $1.00 spent in services and supplies. Per $1.00 spent, injectable contraceptives yielded savings of $5.60; oral contraceptives, $4.07; the patch, $2.99; the vaginal ring, $2.55; barrier methods, $1.34; and emergency contraceptives, $1.43.
CONCLUSIONS: All contraceptive methods were cost-effective-they saved more in public expenditures for unintended pregnancies than they cost to provide. Because no single method is clinically recommended to every woman, it is medically and fiscally advisable for public health programs to offer all contraceptive methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18703437      PMCID: PMC2661445          DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.129353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  14 in total

1.  Estimates of the annual number of clinically recognized pregnancies in the United States, 1981-1991.

Authors:  M Saraiya; C J Berg; H Shulman; C A Green; H K Atrash
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1999-06-01       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  The impact of improved compliance with a weekly contraceptive transdermal system (Ortho Evra) on contraceptive efficacy.

Authors:  David F Archer; Vanessa Cullins; George W Creasy; Alan C Fisher
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.375

3.  The impact of public-sector expenditures for contraceptive services in California.

Authors:  J D Forrest; S Singh
Journal:  Fam Plann Perspect       Date:  1990 Jul-Aug

4.  Public savings from the prevention of unintended pregnancy: a cost analysis of family planning services in California.

Authors:  Gorette Amaral; Diana Greene Foster; M Antonia Biggs; Carolyn Bradner Jasik; Signy Judd; Claire D Brindis
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Impact of publicly funded contraceptive services on unintended pregnancies and implications for Medicaid expenditures.

Authors:  J D Forrest; R Samara
Journal:  Fam Plann Perspect       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct

6.  Compliance, counseling and satisfaction with oral contraceptives: a prospective evaluation.

Authors:  M J Rosenberg; M S Waugh; M S Burnhill
Journal:  Fam Plann Perspect       Date:  1998 Mar-Apr

7.  Efficacy and safety of a contraceptive vaginal ring (NuvaRing) compared with a combined oral contraceptive: a 1-year randomized trial.

Authors:  Kristjan Oddsson; Beate Leifels-Fischer; Nilson Roberto de Melo; Dominique Wiel-Masson; Chiara Benedetto; Carole H J Verhoeven; Thom O M Dieben
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.375

8.  Unintended pregnancies and use, misuse and discontinuation of oral contraceptives.

Authors:  M J Rosenberg; M S Waugh; S Long
Journal:  J Reprod Med       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 0.142

9.  The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods.

Authors:  J Trussell; J A Leveque; J D Koenig; R London; S Borden; J Henneberry; K D LaGuardia; F Stewart; T G Wilson; S Wysocki
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Expanded state-funded family planning services: estimating pregnancies averted by the Family PACT Program in California, 1997-1998.

Authors:  Diana Greene Foster; Cynthia M Klaisle; Maya Blum; Mary E Bradsberry; Claire D Brindis; Felicia H Stewart
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 9.308

View more
  18 in total

1.  The impact of out-of-pocket expense on IUD utilization among women with private insurance.

Authors:  Aileen M Gariepy; Erica J Simon; Divya A Patel; Mitchell D Creinin; Eleanor B Schwarz
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 3.375

2.  Immediate post-abortion insertion of intrauterine contraceptives (IUC) in a diverse urban population.

Authors:  DeShawn Taylor; Shannon Connolly; Sue Ann Ingles; Carey Watson; Penina Segall-Gutierrez
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2014-06

Review 3.  Family planning and the burden of unintended pregnancies.

Authors:  Amy O Tsui; Raegan McDonald-Mosley; Anne E Burke
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 6.222

4.  Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Free of Charge, Method Initiation, and Abortion Rates in Finland.

Authors:  Frida Gyllenberg; Mikael Juselius; Mika Gissler; Oskari Heikinheimo
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 5.  Eliminating health disparities in unintended pregnancy with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC).

Authors:  Caitlin Parks; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Funding policies and postabortion long-acting reversible contraception: results from a cluster randomized trial.

Authors:  Corinne H Rocca; Kirsten M J Thompson; Suzan Goodman; Carolyn L Westhoff; Cynthia C Harper
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-12-12       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception.

Authors:  Jeffrey F Peipert; Qiuhong Zhao; Jenifer E Allsworth; Emiko Petrosky; Tessa Madden; David Eisenberg; Gina Secura
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Comparison of contraceptive use between the Contraceptive CHOICE Project and state and national data.

Authors:  Nupur D Kittur; Gina M Secura; Jeffrey F Peipert; Tessa Madden; Lawrence B Finer; Jenifer E Allsworth
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 3.375

9.  Youth-Friendly Family Planning Services for Young People: A Systematic Review Update.

Authors:  Anna W Brittain; Ana Carolina Loyola Briceno; Karen Pazol; Lauren B Zapata; Emily Decker; Julia M Rollison; Nikita M Malcolm; Lisa M Romero; Emilia H Koumans
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Interest in intrauterine contraception among seekers of emergency contraception and pregnancy testing.

Authors:  Eleanor Bimla Schwarz; Megan Kavanaugh; Erika Douglas; Tamara Dubowitz; Mitchell D Creinin
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 7.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.