Dataset Information

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Two Alternative Models of Maternity Care in Ireland.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Irish government has committed to expand midwifery-led care alongside consultant-led care nationally, although very little is known about the potential net benefits of this reconfiguration.

Objectives

To formally compare the costs and benefits of the major models of care in Ireland, with a view to informing priority setting using the contingent valuation technique and cost-benefit analysis.

Methods

A marginal payment scale willingness-to-pay question was adopted from an ex ante perspective. 450 pregnant women were invited to participate in the study. Cost estimates were collected primarily, describing the average cost of a package of care. Net benefit estimates were calculated over a 1-year cycle using a third-party payer perspective.

Results

To avoid midwifery-led care, women were willing to pay €821.13 (95% CI 761.66-1150.41); to avoid consultant-led care, women were willing to pay €795.06 (95% CI 695.51-921.15). The average cost of a package of consultant- and midwifery-led care was €1,762.12 (95% CI 1496.73-2027.51) and €1018.47 (95% CI 916.61-1120.33), respectively. Midwifery-led care ranked as the best use of resources, generating a net benefit of €1491.22 (95% CI 989.35-1991.93), compared with €123.23 (95% CI -376.58 to 621.42) for consultant-led care.

Conclusions

While both models of care are cost-beneficial, the decision to provide both alternatives may be constrained by resource issues. If only one alternative can be implemented then midwifery-led care should be undertaken for low-risk women, leaving consultant-led care for high-risk women. However, pursuing one alternative contradicts a key objective of government policy, which seeks to improve maternal choice. Ideally, multiple alternatives should be pursued.

SUBMITTER: Fawsitt CG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5701951 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Each year, nearly 4 million pregnant patients in the United States receive prenatal care-a crucial preventive service that improves pregnancy outcomes for mothers and their children. National guidelines currently recommend 12-14 in-person prenatal visits, a schedule that has remained unchanged since 1930. When scrutinizing the standard prenatal visit schedule, it becomes clear that prenatal care is overdue for a redesign. We have strong evidence of the benefits of prenatal services, such as screening for gestational diabetes and maternal vaccination. However, how to deliver these services is not clear. Studies of prenatal services consistently demonstrate that such care can be delivered in fewer than 14 visits and that patients do not need to visit clinics in person to receive all maternity services. Telemedicine has emerged as a promising care delivery option for patients seeking greater flexibility, and early trials leveraging virtual care and remote monitoring have shown positive maternal and fetal outcomes with high patient satisfaction. Our institution has worked for the past year on a new prenatal care pathway. Our initial work assessed the literature, elicited patient perspectives, and captured the insights of experts in patient-centered care delivery. There are 2 key principles that guide prenatal care redesign: (1) design care delivery around essential services, using in-person care for services that cannot be delivered remotely and offering video visits for other essential services, and (2) creation of flexible services for anticipatory guidance and psychosocial support that allow patients to tailor support to meet their needs through opt-in programs. The rise of coronavirus disease 2019 prompted us to extend this early work and rapidly implement a redesigned prenatal care pathway. In this study, we outline our experience in transitioning to a new prenatal care model with 4 in-person visits, 1 ultrasound visit, and 4 virtual visits (the 4-1-4 prenatal plan). We then explore how insights from this implementation can inform patient-centered prenatal care redesign during and beyond the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Project description:We aimed to directly compare women's pregnancy to postpartum outcomes and experiences across the major maternity models of care offered in Queensland, Australia. We conducted secondary analyses of self-reported data collected in 2012 from a state-wide sample of women who had recently given birth in Queensland (response rate = 30.4%). Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of outcomes and experiences associated with three models (GP Shared Care, Public Midwifery Continuity Care, Private Obstetric Care) compared with Standard Public Care, adjusting for relevant maternal characteristics and clinical covariates. Of 2,802 women, 18.2% received Standard Public Care, 21.7% received GP Shared Care, 12.9% received Public Midwifery Continuity Care, and 47.1% received Private Obstetric Care. There were minimal differences for women in GP Shared Care. Women in Public Midwifery Continuity Care were less likely to have a scheduled caesarean and more likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth, experience freedom of mobility during labour and informed consent processes for inducing labour, vaginal examinations, fetal monitoring and receiving Syntocinon to birth their placenta, and report highest quality interpersonal care. They had fewer vaginal examinations, lower odds of perineal trauma requiring sutures and anxiety after birth, shorter postpartum hospital stays, and higher odds of a home postpartum care visit. Women in Private Obstetric Care were more likely to have their labour induced, a scheduled caesarean birth, experience informed consent processes for caesarean, and report highest quality interpersonal care, but less likely to experience unassisted vaginal birth and informed consent for Syntocinon to birth their placenta. There is an urgent need to communicate variations between maternity models across the range of outcome and experiential measures that are important to women; build more rigorous comparative evidence for Private Midwifery Care; and prioritise experiential and out-of-pocket cost comparisons in further research to enable woman-centred informed decision-making.

Project description:In the Netherlands, toxoplasmosis ranks second in disease burden among foodborne pathogens with an estimated health loss of 1,900 Disability Adjusted Life Years and a cost-of-illness estimated at €45 million annually. Therefore, effective and preferably cost-effective preventive interventions are warranted. Freezing meat intended for raw or undercooked consumption and improving biosecurity in pig farms are promising interventions to prevent Toxoplasma gondii infections in humans. Putting these interventions into practice would expectedly reduce the number of infections; however, the net benefits for society are unknown. Stakeholders bearing the costs for these interventions will not necessary coincide with the ones having the benefits. We performed a Social Cost-Benefit Analysis to evaluate the net value of two potential interventions for the Dutch society. We assessed the costs and benefits of the two interventions and compared them with the current practice of education, especially during pregnancy. A 'minimum scenario' and a 'maximum scenario' was assumed, using input parameters with least benefits to society and input parameters with most benefits to society, respectively. For both interventions, we performed different scenario analyses. The freezing meat intervention was far more effective than the biosecurity intervention. Despite high freezing costs, freezing two meat products: steak tartare and mutton leg yielded net social benefits in both the minimum and maximum scenario, ranging from €10.6 million to €31 million for steak tartare and €0.6 million to €1.5 million for mutton leg. The biosecurity intervention would result in net costs in all scenarios ranging from €1 million to €2.5 million, due to high intervention costs and limited benefits. From a public health perspective (i.e. reducing the burden of toxoplasmosis) and the societal perspective (i.e. a net benefit for the Dutch society) freezing steak tartare and leg of mutton is to be considered.

Project description:Integrated maternity care is strongly promoted in the Netherlands. However, the term 'integrated' and its practical meaning is understood differently by professionals and policy makers. This lack of clarity is also visible in other countries and hinders implementation. In this study, we will examine how the concept of 'integrated maternity care' and its defining attributes are presented in the international literature. This study aims to provide a definition and deeper understanding of the concept of integrated maternity care by conducting a concept analysis using Morse's method. We performed a systematic search using Embase and Ebscohost (CINAHL, PsychINFO, SocINDEX, MEDLINE) including records that described integrated maternity care from on organizational perspective. Through a qualitative analysis of the selected research and non-research records, we identified defining attributes, boundaries, antecedents, and consequences of the concept. Subsequently, we constructed a definition of the concept based on the findings. We included 36 records on integrated maternity care in the period from 1978 to 2022. Our search included 21 research and 15 non-research records (e.g. guidelines and policy records). Only half of these had a definition of integrated maternity care. Over time, the definition became more specific. Our concept analysis resulted in three defining attributes of integrated maternity care: collaboration, organizing collaboration and woman-centeredness. We identified role clarity, a culture of collaboration, and clear and timely communication as antecedents of integrated maternity care. A number of consequences were found: continuity of care, improved outcomes, and efficiency. All consequences were described as expected effects of integrated maternity care and not based on evidence. We propose the following definition: 'Integrated maternity care is woman-centred care provided by (maternity) care professionals collaborating together within and across different levels of healthcare with a specific focus on organizing seamless care.' Addressing the antecedents is important for the successful implementation of integrated maternity care.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough effects of alternative payment models on health outcomes and health spending are unclear, they are increasingly implemented in maternity care. We aimed to provide an overview of alternative payment models implemented in maternity care, describing their key design elements among which the type of APM, the care providers that participate in the model, populations and care services that are included and the applied risk mitigation strategies. Next to that, we made an inventory of the empirical evidence on the effects of APMs on maternal and neonatal health outcomes and spending on maternity care.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases for articles published from January 2007 through October 2020. Search key words included 'alternative payment model', 'value based payment model', 'obstetric', 'maternity'. English or Dutch language articles were included if they described or empirically evaluated initiatives implementing alternative payment models in maternity care in high-income countries. Additional relevant documents were identified through reference tracking. We systematically analyzed the initiatives found and examined the evidence regarding health outcomes and health spending. The process was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) to ensure validity and reliability.ResultsWe identified 17 initiatives that implemented alternative payment models in maternity care. Thirteen in the United States, two in the United Kingdom, one in New Zealand and one in the Netherlands. Within these initiatives three types of alternative payment models were implemented; pay-for-performance (n = 2), shared savings models (n = 7) and bundled payment models (n = 8). Alternative payment models that shifted more financial accountability towards providers seemed to include more strategies that mitigated those risks. Risk mitigation strategies were applied to the included population, included services or at the level of total expenditures. Of these seventeen initiatives, we found four empirical effect studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Three of them were of moderate quality and one weak. Two studies described an association of the alternative payment model with an improvement of specific health outcomes and two studies described a reduction in medical spending.ConclusionsThis study shows that key design elements of alternative payment models including risk mitigation strategies vary highly. Risk mitigation strategies seem to be relevant tools to increase APM uptake and protect providers from (initially) bearing too much (perceived) financial risk. Empirical evidence on the effects of APMs on health outcomes and spending is still limited. A clear definition of key design elements and a further, in-depth, understanding of key design elements and how they operate into different health settings is required to shape payment reform that aligns with its goals.