Dylan Walters1, Archna Gupta2, Austin E Nam3, Jennifer Lake4, Frank Martino5, Peter C Coyte6. 1. Student Fellow, Canadian Centre for Health Economics, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 2. Family Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Brampton Civic Hospital, Brampton, ON. 3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 4. Assistant Professor, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 5. Chief of Family Medicine, William Osler Health System, Brampton, ON. 6. Professor, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of in-hospital obstetrical care by obstetricians (OBs), family physicians (FPs) and midwives (MWs) for delivery of low-risk obstetrical patients. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis from the Ministry of Health perspective using a retrospective cohort study. The time horizon was from hospital admission of a low-risk pregnant patient to the discharge of the mother and infant. Costing data included human resource, intervention and hospital case-mix costs. Interventions measured were induction or augmentation of labour with oxytocin, epidural use, forceps or vacuum delivery and caesarean section. The outcome measured was avoidance of transfer to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Model results were tested using various types of sensitivity analyses. FINDINGS: The mean maternal age by provider groups was 29.7 for OBs, 29.8 for FPs and 31.2 for MWs - a statistically higher mean for the MW group. The MW deliveries had lower costs and better outcomes than FPs and OBs. FPs also dominated OB.s The differences in cost per delivery were small, but slightly lower in MW ($5,102) and FP ($5,116) than in OB ($5,188). Avoidance of transfer to an NICU was highest for MW at 94.0% (95% CI: 91.0-97.0), compared with 90.2% for FP (95% CI: 88.2-92.2) and 89.6% for OB (95% CI: 88.6-90.6). The cost-effectiveness of the MW group is diminished by increases in compensation, and the cost-effectiveness of the FP group is sensitive to changes in intervention rates and costs. CONCLUSIONS: The MW strategy was the most cost-effective in this hospital setting. Given data limitations to further examine patient characteristics between groups, the overall conservative findings of this study support investments and better integration for MWs in the current system.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of in-hospital obstetrical care by obstetricians (OBs), family physicians (FPs) and midwives (MWs) for delivery of low-risk obstetrical patients. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis from the Ministry of Health perspective using a retrospective cohort study. The time horizon was from hospital admission of a low-risk pregnant patient to the discharge of the mother and infant. Costing data included human resource, intervention and hospital case-mix costs. Interventions measured were induction or augmentation of labour with oxytocin, epidural use, forceps or vacuum delivery and caesarean section. The outcome measured was avoidance of transfer to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Model results were tested using various types of sensitivity analyses. FINDINGS: The mean maternal age by provider groups was 29.7 for OBs, 29.8 for FPs and 31.2 for MWs - a statistically higher mean for the MW group. The MW deliveries had lower costs and better outcomes than FPs and OBs. FPs also dominated OB.s The differences in cost per delivery were small, but slightly lower in MW ($5,102) and FP ($5,116) than in OB ($5,188). Avoidance of transfer to an NICU was highest for MW at 94.0% (95% CI: 91.0-97.0), compared with 90.2% for FP (95% CI: 88.2-92.2) and 89.6% for OB (95% CI: 88.6-90.6). The cost-effectiveness of the MW group is diminished by increases in compensation, and the cost-effectiveness of the FP group is sensitive to changes in intervention rates and costs. CONCLUSIONS: The MW strategy was the most cost-effective in this hospital setting. Given data limitations to further examine patient characteristics between groups, the overall conservative findings of this study support investments and better integration for MWs in the current system.
Authors: Ana P Betrán; Mario Merialdi; Jeremy A Lauer; Wang Bing-Shun; Jane Thomas; Paul Van Look; Marsden Wagner Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: R A Rosenblatt; S A Dobie; L G Hart; R Schneeweiss; D Gould; T R Raine; T J Benedetti; M J Pirani; E B Perrin Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Peter Brocklehurst; Pollyanna Hardy; Jennifer Hollowell; Louise Linsell; Alison Macfarlane; Christine McCourt; Neil Marlow; Alison Miller; Mary Newburn; Stavros Petrou; David Puddicombe; Maggie Redshaw; Rachel Rowe; Jane Sandall; Louise Silverton; Mary Stewart Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-11-23
Authors: Russell Eric Dawe; Jessica Bishop; Amanda Pendergast; Susan Avery; Kelly Monaghan; Norah Duggan; Kris Aubrey-Bassler Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-12-11
Authors: Lindsay Hedden; Sarah Munro; Kimberlyn M McGrail; Michael R Law; Ivy L Bourgeault; Morris L Barer Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.275