Rebecca A Rowley1, Lindsay E Phillips2, Lisa O'Dell3, Racha El Husseini4, Sarah Carpino5, Scott Hartman2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. rebecca_rowley@urmc.rochester.edu. 2. Department of Family Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. 3. Department of Social Work, Patient and Family Services, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. 4. , Rochester, NY, USA. 5. Department of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Multiple studies have demonstrated improved perinatal outcomes for group prenatal care (GPC) when compared to traditional prenatal care. Benefits of GPC include lower rates of prematurity and low birth weight, fewer cesarean deliveries, improved breastfeeding outcomes and improved maternal satisfaction with care. However, the outpatient financial costs of running a GPC program are not well established. METHODS: This study involved the creation of a financial model that forecasted costs and revenues for prenatal care groups with various numbers of participants based on numerous variables, including patient population, payor mix, patient show rates, staffing mix, supply usage and overhead costs. The model was developed for use in an urban underserved practice. RESULTS: Adjusted revenue per pregnancy in this model was found to be $989.93 for traditional care and $1080.69 for GPC. Cost neutrality for GPC was achieved when each group enrolled an average of 10.652 women with an enriched staffing model or 4.801 women when groups were staffed by a single nurse and single clinician. CONCLUSIONS: Mathematical cost-benefit modeling in an urban underserved practice demonstrated that GPC can be not only financially sustainable but possibly a net income generator for the outpatient clinic. Use of this model could offer maternity care practices an important tool for demonstrating the financial practicality of GPC.
INTRODUCTION: Multiple studies have demonstrated improved perinatal outcomes for group prenatal care (GPC) when compared to traditional prenatal care. Benefits of GPC include lower rates of prematurity and low birth weight, fewer cesarean deliveries, improved breastfeeding outcomes and improved maternal satisfaction with care. However, the outpatient financial costs of running a GPC program are not well established. METHODS: This study involved the creation of a financial model that forecasted costs and revenues for prenatal care groups with various numbers of participants based on numerous variables, including patient population, payor mix, patient show rates, staffing mix, supply usage and overhead costs. The model was developed for use in an urban underserved practice. RESULTS: Adjusted revenue per pregnancy in this model was found to be $989.93 for traditional care and $1080.69 for GPC. Cost neutrality for GPC was achieved when each group enrolled an average of 10.652 women with an enriched staffing model or 4.801 women when groups were staffed by a single nurse and single clinician. CONCLUSIONS: Mathematical cost-benefit modeling in an urban underserved practice demonstrated that GPC can be not only financially sustainable but possibly a net income generator for the outpatient clinic. Use of this model could offer maternity care practices an important tool for demonstrating the financial practicality of GPC.
Authors: Anthony M Vintzileos; Cande V Ananth; John C Smulian; William E Scorza; Robert A Knuppel Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk; Nancy F Feinstein; Linda Alpert-Gillis; Eileen Fairbanks; Hugh F Crean; Robert A Sinkin; Patricia W Stone; Leigh Small; Xin Tu; Steven J Gross Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-10-16 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Shayna D Cunningham; Stephanie Grilo; Jessica B Lewis; Gina Novick; Sharon Schindler Rising; Jonathan N Tobin; Jeannette R Ickovics Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2017-04
Authors: Sarah Gareau; Ana Lòpez-De Fede; Brandon L Loudermilk; Tammy H Cummings; James W Hardin; Amy H Picklesimer; Elizabeth Crouch; Sarah Covington-Kolb Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2016-07
Authors: Shayna D Cunningham; Ryan A Sutherland; Chloe W Yee; Jordan L Thomas; Joan K Monin; Jeannette R Ickovics; Jessica B Lewis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.390