Dataset Information

Out-of-Pocket Medical Bills from First Childbirth and Subsequent Childbearing.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Many families in the United States struggle to pay medical debt. This study aims to investigate the association between having out-of-pocket medical bills from first childbirth sent to debt collection agencies and subsequent childbearing.

Methods

As part of a large-scale birth cohort study (N = 2,169), women in Pennsylvania who delivered their first child in 2009 through 2011 were asked if any of the out-of-pocket medical expenditures resulting from the delivery were sent to debt collection agencies. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between childbirth medical bills going to debt collections in the first year after delivery and subsequent childbearing over the following 2 years, controlling for relevant confounders, including maternal age, education, race/ethnicity, marital status, poverty level, insurance coverage, pregnancy intendedness, difficulty paying for basic needs, plans to have another child, pregnancy complications, and childbirth maternal and neonatal complications.

Results

Women received out-of-pocket medical bills for as much as $32,000. Overall, 8.3% reported having medical bills from the childbirth sent to debt collections. These women were substantially less likely to have a subsequent child during the follow-up period (22.4%) compared with their counterparts, whose medical bills did not go to collections (44.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.93).

Conclusions

When out-of-pocket medical bills from first childbirth are more than American families can afford to pay, they may postpone having a second child. This finding may be particularly true when childbirth medical bills are sent to debt collection agencies.

SUBMITTER: Acharya Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7770019 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePeople in the US face high out-of-pocket medical expenses, yielding financial strain and debt.ObjectiveTo understand how households respond to medical bills they disagree with or cannot afford.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study was carried out using a survey fielded between August 14 and October 14, 2023. The study included a random sample of adult (aged ≥18 years) survey respondents from the Understanding America Study (UAS). Participant responses were weighted to be nationally representative. The analysis took place from November 3, 2023, through January 8, 2024.Main outcomes and measuresRespondents reported if their household received a medical bill that they could not afford or did not agree with in the prior 12 months, and if anyone contacted the billing office regarding their concerns. Those who did reach out were asked about their experience and those who did not were asked why.ResultsThe survey was sent to 1233 UAS panelists, of which 1135 completed the survey, a 92.1% cooperation rate. Overall, 1 in 5 of the 1135 respondents received a medical bill that they disagreed with or could not afford. Leading bill sources were physician offices (66 [34.6%]), emergency room or urgent care (22 [19.9%]), and hospitals (31 [15.3%]), and 136 respondents (61.5%) contacted the billing office to address their concern. A more extroverted and less agreeable personality increased likelihood of reaching out. Respondents without a college degree, lower financial literacy, and the uninsured were less likely to contact a billing office. Among those who did not reach out, 55 (86.1%) reported that they did not think it would make a difference. Of those who reached out, 37 (25.7%) achieved bill corrections, better understanding (16 [18.2%]), payment plans (18 [15.5%]), price drop (17 [15.2%]), financial assistance (10 [8.1%]), and/or bill cancellation (6 [7.3%]), while 32 (21.8%) said that the issue was unresolved and 23.8% reported no change. These outcomes aligned well with respondents' billing concerns with financial relief for 75.8% of respondents reaching out about an unaffordable bill, bill corrections for 73.7% of those who thought there was mistake, and a price drop for 61.8% of those who negotiated.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of patients in the US found that most respondents who self-advocated achieved bill corrections and payment relief. Differences in self-advocacy may be exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities in medical debt burden, as those with less education, lower financial literacy, and the uninsured were less likely to self-advocate. Policies that streamline the administrative burden or shift it from patients to the billing clinician may counter these disparities.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Psychological birth trauma (PBT), mainly due to overlooking maternal mental health, is a common and high prevalence public health problem in low-resource settings. Preventing PBT is a good indicator of the realization of human rights in healthcare. This work reports the results of a qualitative study that aimed to identify perceived strategies of PBT prevention among childbearing women in Iran. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 22 mothers with history of traumatic childbirth, two mothers with positive childbirth experience, two spouses, and eight health professionals between April and June 2017. We used purposive sampling method to recruit traumatized mothers, while health experts were selected based on their relevant expertise and experience. Our initial literature review identified eight categories, using which we developed our interview guide and conducted the content analysis approach. RESULTS:With the maximum possible purification, we reached 50 thematic codes. The strategies to prevent PBT are generally summarized in four major themes and 13 categories: 1) skill-builder knowledge [Birth preparedness, Mothers' empowerment in maintaining mental health, Understanding the importance of mental care in maternity services], 2) responsible caregiving [Support loop, Good behavior of the caregivers, Deepening trust, Struggle with medicalization of childbirth, Labour pain relief, Special services for maternal mental health], 3) the alliance of prenatal and antenatal care [Continuity of care, Coordination of prenatal and antenatal caregivers], and 4) reconstruction of the structures [Efficient management, Rebuilding physical structures]. CONCLUSIONS:This is a comprehensive approach towards PBT prevention, which can guide future efforts to reduce PBT at the clinical level and open further avenues for future studies. We recommend policy makers to consider the integration of multilevel and multidimensional PBT prevention interventions, simultaneously within maternity care services packages for promotion of mental health.

Project description:BackgroundPatient medical out-of-pocket expenses are thought to be rising worldwide yet data describing trends over time is scant. We evaluated trends of out-of-pocket expenses for patients in Australia with one of five major cancers in the first-year after diagnosis.MethodsParticipants from the QSKIN Sun and Health prospective cohort Study with a histologically confirmed breast, colorectal, lung, melanoma, or prostate cancer diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 were included (n = 1965). Medicare claims data on out-of-pocket expenses were analysed using a two-part model adjusted for year of diagnosis, health insurance status, age and education level. Fisher price and quantity indexes were also calculated to assess prices and volumes separately.ResultsOn average, patients with cancer diagnosed in 2015 spent 70% more out-of-pocket on direct medical expenses than those diagnosed in 2011. Out-of-pocket expenses increased significantly for patients with breast cancer (mean AU$2513 in 2011 to AU$6802 in 2015). Out-of-pocket expenses were higher overall for individuals with private health insurance. For prostate cancer, expenses increased for those without private health insurance over time (mean AU$1586 in 2011 to AU$4748 in 2014) and remained stable for those with private health insurance (AU$4397 in 2011 to AU$5623 in 2015). There were progressive increases in prices and quantities of medical services for patients with melanoma, breast and lung cancer. For all cancers, prices increased for medicines and doctor attendances but fluctuated for other medical services.ConclusionOut-of-pocket expenses for patients with cancer have increased substantially over time. Such increases were more pronounced for women with breast cancer and those without private health insurance. Increased out-of-pocket expenses arose from both higher prices and higher volumes of health services but differ by cancer type. Further efforts to monitor patient out-of-pocket costs and prevent health inequities are required.