Brett D Einerson1, Richard E Nelson, Grecio Sandoval, M Sean Esplin, D Ware Branch, Torri D Metz, Robert M Silver, William A Grobman, Uma M Reddy, Michael Varner. 1. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah Health, Intermountain Healthcare, and the IDEAS Center, VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, Utah; George Washington University Biostatistics Center, Washington, DC; the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the actual health-system cost of elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with expectant management. METHODS: This was an economic analysis of patients enrolled in the five Utah hospitals participating in a multicenter randomized trial of elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. The entire trial enrolled more than 6,000 patients. For this subset, 1,201 had cost data available. The primary outcome was relative direct health care costs of maternal and neonatal care from a health system perspective. Secondary outcomes included the costs of each phase of maternal and neonatal care. Direct health system costs of maternal and neonatal care were measured using advanced costing analytics from the time of randomization at 38 weeks of gestation until exit from the study up to 8 weeks postpartum. Costs in each randomization arm were compared using generalized linear models and reported as the relative cost of induction compared with expectant management. With a fixed sample size, we had adequate power to detect a 7.3% or greater difference in overall costs. RESULTS: The total cost of elective induction was no different than expectant management (mean difference +4.7%; 95% CI -2.1% to +12.0%; P=.18). Maternal outpatient antenatal care costs were 47.0% lower in the induction arm (95% CI -58.3% to -32.6%; P<.001). Maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs, conversely, were 16.9% higher among women undergoing labor induction (95% CI +5.5% to +29.5%; P=.003). Maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge did not differ between arms. CONCLUSION: Total costs of elective labor induction and expectant management did not differ significantly. These results challenge the assumption that elective induction of labor leads to significant cost escalation.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the actual health-system cost of elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with expectant management. METHODS: This was an economic analysis of patients enrolled in the five Utah hospitals participating in a multicenter randomized trial of elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. The entire trial enrolled more than 6,000 patients. For this subset, 1,201 had cost data available. The primary outcome was relative direct health care costs of maternal and neonatal care from a health system perspective. Secondary outcomes included the costs of each phase of maternal and neonatal care. Direct health system costs of maternal and neonatal care were measured using advanced costing analytics from the time of randomization at 38 weeks of gestation until exit from the study up to 8 weeks postpartum. Costs in each randomization arm were compared using generalized linear models and reported as the relative cost of induction compared with expectant management. With a fixed sample size, we had adequate power to detect a 7.3% or greater difference in overall costs. RESULTS: The total cost of elective induction was no different than expectant management (mean difference +4.7%; 95% CI -2.1% to +12.0%; P=.18). Maternal outpatient antenatal care costs were 47.0% lower in the induction arm (95% CI -58.3% to -32.6%; P<.001). Maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs, conversely, were 16.9% higher among women undergoing labor induction (95% CI +5.5% to +29.5%; P=.003). Maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge did not differ between arms. CONCLUSION: Total costs of elective labor induction and expectant management did not differ significantly. These results challenge the assumption that elective induction of labor leads to significant cost escalation.
Authors: Herschel Wilde; Mohammed A Azab; Abdullah M Abunimer; Hussam Abou-Al-Shaar; Michael Karsy; Jian Guan; Sarah T Menacho; Randy L Jensen Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Jeremy D Meier; Melanie Duval; Jacob Wilkes; Seth Andrews; E Kent Korgenski; Albert H Park; Rajendu Srivastava Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: William A Grobman; Madeline M Rice; Uma M Reddy; Alan T N Tita; Robert M Silver; Gail Mallett; Kim Hill; Elizabeth A Thom; Yasser Y El-Sayed; Annette Perez-Delboy; Dwight J Rouse; George R Saade; Kim A Boggess; Suneet P Chauhan; Jay D Iams; Edward K Chien; Brian M Casey; Ronald S Gibbs; Sindhu K Srinivas; Geeta K Swamy; Hyagriv N Simhan; George A Macones Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kensaku Kawamoto; Cary J Martin; Kip Williams; Ming-Chieh Tu; Charlton G Park; Cheri Hunter; Catherine J Staes; Bruce E Bray; Vikrant G Deshmukh; Reid A Holbrook; Scott J Morris; Matthew B Fedderson; Amy Sletta; James Turnbull; Sean J Mulvihill; Gordon L Crabtree; David E Entwistle; Quinn L McKenna; Michael B Strong; Robert C Pendleton; Vivian S Lee Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Michelle P Debbink; Torri D Metz; Richard E Nelson; Sophie E Janes; Alexandra Kroes; Lori J Begaye; Cara C Heuser; Marcela C Smid; Robert M Silver; Michael W Varner; Brett D Einerson Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.079