Dataset Information

Out-of-Pocket Costs for Facility-Based Obstetrical Care in Rural Guatemala.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rural Indigenous Maya communities in Guatemala have some of the worst obstetrical health outcomes in Latin America, due to widespread discrimination in healthcare and an underfunded public sector. Multiple systems-level efforts to improve facility birth outcomes have been implemented, primarily focusing on early community-based detection of obstetrical complications and on reducing discrimination and improving the quality of facility-level care. However, another important feature of public facility-level care are the out-of-pocket payments that patients are often required to make for care.

Objective

To estimate the burden of out-of-pocket costs for public obstetrical care in Indigenous Maya communities in Guatemala.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical record data on obstetrical referrals collected as part of an obstetrical care navigation intervention, which included documentation of out-of-pocket costs by care navigators accompanying patients within public facilities. We compared the median costs for both emergency and routine obstetrical facility care.

Findings

Cost data on 709 obstetric referrals from 479 patients were analyzed (65% emergency and 35% routine referrals). The median OOP costs were Q100 (IQR 75-150) [$13 USD] and Q50 (IQR 16-120) [$6.50 USD] for emergency and routine referrals. Costs for transport were most common (95% and 55%, respectively). Costs for medication, supply, laboratory, and imaging costs occurred less frequently. Food and lodging costs were minimal.

Conclusion

Out-of-pocket payments for theoretically free public care are a common and important barrier to care for this rural Guatemalan setting. These data add to the literature in Latin American on the barriers to obstetrical care faced by Indigenous and rural women.

SUBMITTER: Juarez M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8344954 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Over 1.7 billion children lack access to surgical care, mostly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with substantial risks of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment. Increasing interest in reducing out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures as a tool to reduce the rate of poverty is growing. However, the impact of reducing OOP expenditures on CHE remains poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to estimate the global impact of reducing OOP expenditures for pediatric surgical care on the risk of CHE within and between countries. Our goal was to estimate the impact of reducing OOP expenditures for surgical care in children for 149 countries by modeling the risk of CHE under various scale-up scenarios using publicly available World Bank data. Scenarios included reducing OOP expenditures from baseline levels to paying 70%, 50%, 30%, and 10% of OOP expenditures. We also compared the impact of these reductions across income quintiles (poorest, poor, middle, rich, richest) and differences by country income level (low-income, lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries).Reducing OOP expenditures benefited people from all countries and income quintiles, although the benefits were not equal. The risk of CHE due to a surgical procedure for children was highest in low-income countries. An unexpected observation was that upper-middle income countries were at higher risk for CHE than LMICs. The most vulnerable regions were Africa and Latin America. Across all countries, the poorest quintile had the greatest risk for CHE. Increasing interest in financial protection programs to reduce OOP expenditures is growing in many areas of global health. Reducing OOP expenditures benefited people from all countries and income quintiles, although the benefits were not equal across countries, wealth groups, or even by wealth groups within countries. Understanding these complexities is critical to develop appropriate policies to minimize the risks of poverty.

Project description:BackgroundDespite an official policy of exemption from health care costs, pregnant women in Niger still face some out-of-pocket costs (OPC) in addition to time costs when they attend antenatal care (ANC) services. We aimed to: 1) assess the OPC for pregnant woman attending ANC, 2) estimate the time spent to attend ANC and the opportunity cost of that time, and 3) assess how OPC and time spent to attend ANC affected ANC attendance.MethodsData were obtained from a quasi-experimental descriptive study carried out in the region of Zinder, Niger, which compared pre- and post-intervention cohorts of pregnant women (n = 1736 women who reported attending ANC during their current pregnancy). An ANC attendance score was developed to describe the timing of ANC attendance in regard to the WHO recommendation of attending 4 ANC sessions. OPC and time spent were evaluated separately for associations with ANC attendance using Spearman correlations.ResultsThe mean (±SD) age of pregnant women was 25.0 ± 6.4 yr, 19.0% were ≤ 19 yr and 99.7% were in their second or third trimester of gestation at the time of the interview. Among those who were > 13 weeks and > 27 weeks of gestation, 4.0 and 74.4% had attended ANC during their first and second trimesters, respectively. The median (1st quartile (Q1), 3rd quartile (Q3)) ANC score was 0 (- 1, 0), reflecting that the majority of women failed to follow the WHO recommendation. More than half of the women (72.5%) experienced OPC related to ANC. The majority of women (> 80%) reported spending ~ 3 h for an ANC visit, including travel and waiting time. Time spent to attend ANC was not associated with ANC attendance score. Women who experienced OPC, and those who received iron folic acid (IFA) or long-lasting insecticide-treated bednets during an ANC visit, were more likely to have a higher ANC attendance score compared to those who did not.ConclusionOPC and time spent were not identified as barriers to ANC visits, and IFA and long-lasting insecticide-treated bednets distribution could be used to motivate pregnant women to attend ANC.Trial registrationThe NiMaNu project was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01832688 . Registered 16 April 2013.

Project description:ImportanceOne-third of US residents have trouble paying their medical bills. They often turn to their physicians for help navigating health costs and insurance coverage.ObjectiveTo determine whether physicians can accurately estimate out-of-pocket expenses when they are given all of the necessary information about a drug's price and a patient's insurance plan.Design, setting, and participantsThis national mail-in survey used a random sample of US physicians. The survey was sent to 900 outpatient physicians (300 each of primary care, gastroenterology, and rheumatology). Physicians were excluded if they were in training, worked primarily for the Veterans Administration or Indian Health Service, were retired, or reported 0% outpatient clinical effort. Analyses were performed from July to December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresIn a hypothetical vignette, a patient was prescribed a new drug costing $1000/month without insurance. A summary of her private insurance information was provided, including the plan's deductible, coinsurance rates, copays, and out-of-pocket maximum. Physicians were asked to estimate the drug's out-of-pocket cost at 4 time points between January and December, using the plan's 4 types of cost-sharing: (1) deductibles, (2) coinsurance, (3) copays, and (4) out-of-pocket maximums. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess differences in performance by specialty, adjusting for attitudes toward cost conversations, demographics, and clinical characteristics.ResultsThe response rate was 45% (405 of 900) and 371 respondents met inclusion criteria. Among the respondents included in this study, 59% (n = 220) identified as male, 23% (n = 84) as Asian, 3% (n = 12) as Black, 6% (n = 24) as Hispanic, and 58% (n = 216) as White; 30% (n = 112) were primary care physicians, 35% (n = 128) were gastroenterologists, and 35% (n = 131) were rheumatologists; and the mean (SD) age was 49 (10) years. Overall, 52% of physicians (n = 192) accurately estimated costs before the deductible was met, 62% (n = 228) accurately used coinsurance information, 61% (n = 224) accurately used copay information, and 57% (n = 210) accurately estimated costs once the out-of-pocket maximum was met. Only 21% (n = 78) of physicians answered all 4 questions correctly. Ability to estimate out-of-pocket costs was not associated with specialty, attitudes toward cost conversations, or clinic characteristics.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found that many US physicians have difficulty estimating out-of-pocket costs, even when they have access to their patients' insurance plans. The mechanics involved in calculating real-time out-of-pocket costs are complex. These findings suggest that increased price transparency and simpler insurance cost-sharing mechanisms are needed to enable informed cost conversations at the point of prescribing.