Literature DB >> 25250198

Potential Medicaid cost savings from maternity care based at a freestanding birth center.

Embry Howell1, Ashley Palmer1, Sarah Benatar1, Bowen Garrett1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Medicaid pays for about half the births in the United States, at very high cost. Compared to usual obstetrical care, care by midwives at a birth center could reduce costs to the Medicaid program. This study draws on information from a previous study of the outcomes of birth center care to determine whether such care reduces Medicaid costs for low income women.
METHODS: The study uses results from a study of maternal and infant outcomes at the Family Health and Birth Center in Washington, D.C. Costs to Medicaid are derived from birth center data and from other national sources of the cost of obstetrical care.
RESULTS: We estimate that birth center care could save an average of $1,163 per birth (2008 constant dollars), or $11.6 million per 10,000 births per year.
CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid is the leading payer for maternity services. As Medicaid faces continuing cost increases and budget constraints, policy makers should consider a larger role for midwives and birth centers in maternity care for low-risk Medicaid pregnant women.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost effectiveness analysis; Medicaid; benefit cost; birth centers; cost; maternal and perinatal care and outcomes; midwifery; obstetrical costs; utility

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25250198      PMCID: PMC4167228          DOI: 10.5600/mmrr.004.03.a06

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Medicare Medicaid Res Rev        ISSN: 2159-0354


  16 in total

1.  The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Alan M Garber; Harold C Sox
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002.

Authors:  Eugene Declercq; Fay Menacker; Marian Macdorman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births.

Authors:  Eugene Declercq; Mary Barger; Howard J Cabral; Stephen R Evans; Milton Kotelchuck; Carol Simon; Judith Weiss; Linda J Heffner
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 4.  Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nils Chaillet; Alexandre Dumont
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.689

5.  Piercing the veil: the marginalization of midwives in the United States.

Authors:  Steffie Goodman
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 6.  The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  L B Russell; M R Gold; J E Siegel; N Daniels; M C Weinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-10-09       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The cultural evolution of natural birth.

Authors:  Margaret E MacDonald
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-07-30       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature.

Authors:  Chris McCourt; Jane Weaver; Helen Statham; Sarah Beake; Jenny Gamble; Debra K Creedy
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.689

Review 9.  The relationship between cesarean delivery and gestational age among US singleton births.

Authors:  Vani R Bettegowda; Todd Dias; Michael J Davidoff; Karla Damus; William M Callaghan; Joann R Petrini
Journal:  Clin Perinatol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.430

10.  Reducing cesarean section rates safely: lessons from a "breakthrough series" collaborative.

Authors:  B L Flamm; D M Berwick; A Kabcenell
Journal:  Birth       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.689

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Costing Alternative Birth Settings for Women at Low Risk of Complications: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Vanessa Scarf; Christine Catling; Rosalie Viney; Caroline Homer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  Freestanding Midwife-Led Units: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Grażyna Bączek; Urszula Tataj-Puzyna; Dorota Sys; Barbara Baranowska
Journal:  Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res       Date:  2020-04-18

3.  Strong Start in birth centers: Socio-demographic characteristics, care processes, and outcomes for mothers and newborns.

Authors:  Jill Alliman; Susan R Stapleton; Jennifer Wright; Kate Bauer; Kate Slider; Diana Jolles
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 3.689

4.  Financing Maternity and Early Childhood Healthcare in The Australian Healthcare System: Costs to Funders in Private and Public Hospitals Over the First 1000 Days.

Authors:  Emily Callander; Antonia Shand; David Ellwood; Haylee Fox; Natasha Nassar
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2021-09-01

5.  Outcomes of childbearing Medicaid beneficiaries engaged in care at Strong Start birth center sites between 2012 and 2014.

Authors:  Diana R Jolles; Rae Langford; Susan Stapleton; Sandra Cesario; Anne Koci; Jill Alliman
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 3.689

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.