Medicaid Cost and Reimbursement for Low-Risk Prenatal Care in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: We calculate the financial margins for delivery of routine antenatal care as reimbursed by Medicaid. Prenatal care cost varies with overhead, health care provider type, and number of office visits. Antenatal care is only one component of the global maternity bundle, which also includes intrapartum and postpartum care. METHODS: Time for provision of low-risk antenatal care was determined prospectively from a study of 133 low-risk pregnant patients. Health care provider time cost was estimated using mean wages for obstetricians and midwives. Margins were estimated by subtracting cost of provider services and overhead for the antenatal component of maternity care from total Medicaid reimbursement for the pregnancy global package (CPT 59400) using 2015 dollars. The maternity bundle elements of routine prenatal laboratory tests, ultrasounds, intrapartum care, and postpartum care were not included in our analysis of cost components. RESULTS: Patients received an average of 215 minutes of direct provider time per pregnancy. At the 50th percentile for physician payment and assuming overhead is 53.4% of revenue, practice margins varied by state from -$1067 to +$675, with a median of -$357. Median margins for midwifery care were +$15, with a range of -$579 to +$885. Margins were negative if overhead costs exceeded 33% of revenue for physician care and 55% of revenue for midwifery care. DISCUSSION: In many states, Medicaid reimbursement for the global maternity package is less than the actual cost of antenatal care alone. Improving reimbursement or decreasing costs is necessary to make maternity care more cost-effective.

OB Nest randomized controlled trial: a cost comparison of reduced visit compared to traditional prenatal care.

BACKGROUND: Traditional prenatal care includes up to 13 in person office visits, and the cost of this care is not well-described. Alternative models are being explored to better meet the needs of patients and providers. OB Nest is a telemedicine-enhanced program with a reduced frequency of in-person prenatal visits. The cost implications of connected care services added to prenatal care packages are unclear. METHODS: Using data from the OB Nest randomized, controlled trial we analyzed the provider and staff time associated with prenatal care in the traditional and OB Nest models. Fewer visits were required for OB Nest, but given the compensatory increase in connected care activity and supplies, the actual cost difference is not known. Nursing and provider staff time was prospectively recorded for all patients enrolled in the OB Nest clinical trial. Published 2015 national wages for healthcare workers were used to calculate the actual labor cost of providing either traditional or OB Nest prenatal care in 2015 US dollars. Overhead expenses and opportunity costs were not considered. RESULTS: Total provider cost was decreased caring for the OB Nest participants, but nursing cost was increased. OB Nest care required an average of 160.8 (+/- 45.0) minutes provider time and 237 (+/- 25.1) minutes nursing time, compared to 215.0 (+/- 71.6) and 99.6 (+/- 29.7) minutes for traditional prenatal care (P < 0.01). This translated into decreased provider cost and increased nursing cost (P < 0.01). Supply costs increased, travel costs declined, and overhead costs declined in the OB Nest model. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, labor cost for OB Nest prenatal care was 34% higher than for traditional prenatal care. The increased cost is largely attributable to additional nursing connected care time, and in some practice settings may be offset by decreased overhead costs and increased provider billing opportunities. Future efforts will be focused on development of digital solutions for some routine nursing tasks to decrease the overall cost of the model. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02082275 .

Medical therapy versus radiofrequency endometrial ablation in the initial treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (iTOM Trial): A clinical and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency endometrial ablation (REA) is currently a second line treatment in women with heavy menstrual bleeding (MHB) if medical therapy (MTP) is contraindicated or unsatisfactory. Our objective is to compare the effectiveness and cost burden of MTP and REA in the initial treatment of HMB. METHODS: We performed a randomized trial at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. The planned sample size was 60 patients per arm. A total of 67 women with HMB were randomly allocated to receive oral contraceptive pills (Nordette ®) or Naproxen (Naprosyn®) (n = 33) or REA (n = 34). Primary 12-month outcome measures included menstrual blood loss using pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBLAC), patients' satisfaction, and Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS). Secondary outcomes were total costs including direct medical and indirect costs associated with healthcare use, patient out-of-pocket costs, and lost work days and activity limitations over 12 months. RESULTS: Compared to MTP arm, women who received REA had a significantly lower PBLAC score (median [Interquartile range, IQR]: 0 [0-4] vs. 15 [0-131], p = 0.003), higher satisfaction rates (96.8%vs.63.2%, p = 0.003) and higher MMAS (median [IQR]: 100 [100-100] vs. 100 [87-100], p = 0.12) at 12 months. Direct medical costs were higher for REA ($5,331vs.$2,901, 95% confidence interval (CI) of mean difference:$727,$4,852), however, when indirect costs are included, the difference did not reach statistical significance ($5,469 vs. $3,869, 95% CI of mean difference:-$339, $4,089). CONCLUSION: For women with heavy menstrual bleeding, initial radiofrequency endometrial ablation compared to medical therapy offered superior reduction in menstrual blood loss and improvement in quality of life without significant differences in total costs of care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01165307.

Hysterosalpingography After Radiofrequency Endometrial Ablation and Hysteroscopic Sterilization as a Concomitant Procedure.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of hysterosalpingography (HSG) in patients who underwent concomitant radiofrequency endometrial ablation and hysteroscopic sterilization. METHODS: This historical cohort study was conducted at a midwestern academic medical center. A total of 186 women (94 with combined procedure and 92 with sterilization alone) were identified as having undergone intervention between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2011. Two reviewers blinded to the surgical procedure interpreted the standard clinically indicated HSGs in each group. RESULTS: The primary outcome assessed was the inability to rely on the microinserts for contraception based on HSG interpretation using manufacturers' guidelines (unsatisfactory HSG). Position of the devices and occlusion of tubes were assessed on all 3-month and, when available, all 6-month repeat HSGs. At the 3-month HSG, 5 of 76 (6.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2-14.7%) in the sterilization-only group had unsatisfactory HSG compared with 13 of 71 (18.3%, 95% CI 10.1-29.3%) in the combined group (P=.03). After accounting for the seven patients who underwent repeat HSG at 6 months, 3 of 76 (3.95%, 95% CI 0.8-11.1%) in the sterilization-only group had unsatisfactory HSG compared with 13 of 71 (18.31%, 95% CI 10.1-29.3%) in the combined group (P=.005). CONCLUSION: After completing all clinically indicated HSGs, patients who undergo concomitant radiofrequency endometrial ablation and hysteroscopic sterilization have an approximate fivefold increase (odds ratio 5.45, 95% CI 1.48-20.0) in the rate of unsatisfactory HSG for purposes of documenting tubal occlusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Retrospective cost analysis comparing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral tubal coagulation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the institutional cost of permanent female sterilization by Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral coagulation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Midwestern academic medical center. PATIENTS: Women of reproductive age who elected for permanent contraception by the Essure method (n = 43) or by laparoscopic tubal coagulation (n = 44) during the time frame studied. INTERVENTIONS: Placement of the Essure inserts according to the manufacturer's instructions or laparoscopic tubal sterilization using bipolar forceps according to standard techniques of open or closed laparoscopy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cost-center data for the institutional cost of the procedure was abstracted for each patient included in the study. In addition, demographic data and procedural information were obtained and compared for the patient populations. The Essure system of hysteroscopic sterilization had a significantly decreased cost compared with laparoscopic tubal sterilization when both procedures were performed in an operating room setting. The decrease per patient in institutional cost was 180 dollars (p = .038). This included the cost of the confirmatory hysterosalpingogram 3 months after Essure placement and the cost of laparoscopic tubal occlusion by Filshie clip if the Essure micro-inserts could not be placed. The majority of the cost was related to hospital costs as opposed to physician costs. The Essure procedure had higher costs for disposable equipment (p <.0001), but this was offset by higher charges for operating room costs, which included the recovery room (p <.0001) and pharmacy costs (p <.0001) in the patients in the laparoscopy group. CONCLUSION: In our setting, the Essure hysteroscopic sterilization had significant cost savings compared with laparoscopic tubal sterilization (p = .038). We believe that our data represent the minimum of potential savings using this approach, and future developments will only increase the cost difference found in our study.