BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is a rising health problem in Europe generally, and in Austria specifically. Decision makers require objective information on the effects and costs of measures to prevent preterm birth. METHODS: We undertook a budget impact analysis from a public payer perspective and for a 1-year and 5-year time horizon for five prevention approaches to reduce preterm birth. These were cervix screening + progesterone application, progesterone injection, smoking cessation, fish oil supplementation and infection screening. We analysed affordability in terms of programme costs and potential cost savings. RESULTS: Programme costs range from below €50 000 (cervix screening in high-risk pregnancy) to €500 000 (universal infection screening). The lowest health effects have been shown for smoking cessation programmes (-10 preterm births per year), whereas infection screening demonstrated the largest effect (-230 preterm births per year). In the base-case analysis, all programmes are potentially cost saving (-€500 000 to -€13 million per year). In the sensitivity analyses, preterm birth costs, target group size and (partly) unit costs of programme components have an influence on potential cost savings. However, except for two programmes, the results are robust concerning an overall economic net benefit of the programmes analysed compared with no programme. The study is mainly limited by the quality of some cost data and choice of the reference scenario. CONCLUSION: When considering potential cost savings, the five prevention programmes analysed seem affordable, with cervix screening and infection screening likely being the most promising in Austria.
BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is a rising health problem in Europe generally, and in Austria specifically. Decision makers require objective information on the effects and costs of measures to prevent preterm birth. METHODS: We undertook a budget impact analysis from a public payer perspective and for a 1-year and 5-year time horizon for five prevention approaches to reduce preterm birth. These were cervix screening + progesterone application, progesterone injection, smoking cessation, fish oil supplementation and infection screening. We analysed affordability in terms of programme costs and potential cost savings. RESULTS: Programme costs range from below €50 000 (cervix screening in high-risk pregnancy) to €500 000 (universal infection screening). The lowest health effects have been shown for smoking cessation programmes (-10 preterm births per year), whereas infection screening demonstrated the largest effect (-230 preterm births per year). In the base-case analysis, all programmes are potentially cost saving (-€500 000 to -€13 million per year). In the sensitivity analyses, preterm birth costs, target group size and (partly) unit costs of programme components have an influence on potential cost savings. However, except for two programmes, the results are robust concerning an overall economic net benefit of the programmes analysed compared with no programme. The study is mainly limited by the quality of some cost data and choice of the reference scenario. CONCLUSION: When considering potential cost savings, the five prevention programmes analysed seem affordable, with cervix screening and infection screening likely being the most promising in Austria.
Authors: Linda J E Meertens; Hubertina C J Scheepers; Jessica P M M Willemse; Marc E A Spaanderman; Luc J M Smits Journal: Matern Child Nutr Date: 2017-06-18 Impact factor: 3.092