The financial impact of offering publicly funded homebirths: A population-based microsimulation in Queensland, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Despite strong evidence of benefits and increasing consumer demand for homebirth, Australia has failed to effectively upscale it. To promote the adoption and expansion of homebirth in the public health care system, policymakers require quantifiable results to evaluate its economic value. To date, there has been limited evaluation of the financial impact of birth settings for women at low risk of pregnancy complications. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the difference in inpatient costs around birth between offering homebirth in the public maternity system versus not offering public homebirth to selected women who meet low-risk pregnancy criteria. METHODS: We used a whole-of-population linked administrative dataset containing all women who gave birth in Queensland (one Australian State) between 01/07/2012 and 30/06/2018 where publicly funded homebirth is not currently offered. We created a static microsimulation model to compare the inpatient cost difference for mother and baby around birth based on the women who gave birth between 01/07/2017 and 30/06/2018 (n = 36,314). The model comprised of a base model - representing standard public hospital care, and a counterfactual model - representing a hypothetical scenario where 5 % of women who gave birth in public hospitals planned to give birth at home prior to the onset of labour (n = 1816). Costs were reported in 2021/22 AUD. RESULTS: In our hypothetical scenario, after considering the effect of assumptive place and mode of birth for these planned homebirths, the estimated State-level inpatient cost saving around birth (summed for mother and babies) per pregnancy were: AU$303.13 (to Queensland public hospitals) and AU$186.94 (to Queensland public hospital funders). This calculates to a total cost saving per annum of AU$11 million (to Queensland public hospitals) and AU$6.8 million (to Queensland public hospital funders). CONCLUSION: A considerable amount of inpatient health care costs around birth could be saved if 5 % of women booked at their local public hospitals, planned to give birth at home through a public-funded homebirth program. This finding supports the establishment and expansion of the homebirth option in the public health care system.

Financing Maternity and Early Childhood Healthcare in The Australian Healthcare System: Costs to Funders in Private and Public Hospitals Over the First 1000 Days.

BACKGROUND: Maternity care is a significant contributor to overall healthcare expenditure, and private care is seen as a mechanism to reduce the cost to public funders. However, public funders may still contribute to part of the cost of private care. The paper aims to quantify (1) the cost to different funders of maternal and early childhood healthcare over the first 1000 days for both women giving birth in private and public hospitals; (2) any variation in cost to different funders by birth type; and (3) the cost of excess caesarean sections in public and private hospitals in Australia. METHODS: This study utilised a whole of population linked administrative dataset, and classified costs by the funding source. The mean cost to different funders for private hospital births, and public hospital births in the Australian state, Queensland are presented by time period and by birth type. The World Health Organization's (WHO's) C-model was used to identify the optimal caesarean section rate based upon demographic and clinical factors, and counterfactual analysis was utilised to identify the cost to different funders if caesarean section had been utilised at this rate across Australia. RESULTS: We found that for women who gave birth in a public hospital as a public patient, the mean cost was $22 474. For women who gave birth in a private hospital the mean cost was $24 731, and the largest contributor was private health insurers ($11 550), followed by Medicare ($7261) and individuals ($3312). Private hospital births cost government funders $10 050 on average; whereas public hospital public patient births cost government funders $21 723 on average and public hospital private patient births cost government funders $20 899 on average. If caesarean section deliveries were reduced, public hospital funders could save $974 million and private health insurers could save $216 million. CONCLUSION: Private hospital births cost government funders less than public hospital births, but government funders still pay for around 40% of the cost of private hospital births. Caesarean sections, which are more frequently performed in private hospitals, are costly to all funders and reducing them could impart significant cost savings to all funders.

The role of midwifery and other international insights for maternity care in the United States: An analysis of four countries.

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) spends more on health care than any other high-resource country. Despite this, their maternal and newborn outcomes are worse than all other countries with similar levels of economic development. Our purpose was to describe maternal and newborn outcomes and organization of care in four high-resource countries (Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom) with consistently better outcomes and lower health care costs, and to identify opportunities for emulation and improvement in the United States. METHOD: We examined resources that described health care organization and financing, provider types, birth settings, national, clinical guidelines, health care policies, surveillance data, and information for consumers. We conducted interviews with country stakeholders representing the disciplines of obstetrics, midwifery, pediatrics, neonatology, epidemiology, sociology, political science, public health, and health services. The results of the analysis were compared and contrasted with the US maternity system. RESULTS: The four countries had lower rates of maternal mortality, low birthweight, and newborn and infant death than the United States. Five commonalities were identified as follows: (1) affordable/ accessible health care, (2) a maternity workforce that emphasized midwifery care and interprofessional collaboration, (3) respectful care and maternal autonomy, (4) evidence-based guidelines on place of birth, and (5) national data collections systems. CONCLUSIONS: The findings reveal marked differences in the other countries compared to the United States. It is critical to consider the evidence for improved maternal and newborn outcomes with different models of care and to examine US cultural and structural failures that are leading to unacceptable and substandard maternal and infant outcomes.

What are the costs of stillbirth? Capturing the direct health care and macroeconomic costs in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Reducing stillbirth rates is an international priority; however, little is known about the cost of stillbirth. This analysis sought to quantify the costs of stillbirth in Australia. METHODS: Mothers and costs were identified by linking a state-based registry of all births between 2012 and 2015 to other administrative data sets. Costs from time of birth to 2 years postbirth were included. Propensity score matching was used to account for differences between women who had a stillbirth and those that did not. Macroeconomic costs were estimated using value of lost output analysis and value of lost welfare analysis. RESULTS: Cost to government was on average $3774 more per mother who had a stillbirth compared with mothers who had a live birth. After accounting for gestation at birth, the cost of a stillbirth was 42% more than a live birth (P < .001). Costs for inpatient services, emergency department services, services covered under Medicare (such as primary and specialist care, diagnostic tests and imaging), and prescription pharmaceuticals were all significantly higher for mothers who had a stillbirth. Mothers who had a stillbirth paid on average $1479 out of pocket, which was 52% more than mothers who had a live birth after accounting for gestation at birth (P < .001). The value of lost output was estimated to be $73.8 million (95% CI: 44.0 million-103.9 million). The estimated value of lost social welfare was estimated to be $18 billion. DISCUSSION: Stillbirth has a sustained economic impact on society and families, which demonstrates the potential resource savings that could be generated from stillbirth prevention.

Reducing caesarean delivery: An economic evaluation of routine induction of labour at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women.

BACKGROUND: Clinical interventions known to reduce the risk of caesarean delivery include routine induction of labour at 39 weeks, caseload midwifery and chart audit, but they have not been compared for cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To assesses the cost-effectiveness of three different interventions known to reduce caesarean delivery rates compared to standard care; and conduct a budget impact analysis. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was constructed to compare the costs and outcomes produced by the different interventions. Costs included all costs to the health system, and outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. A budget impact analysis was undertaken using this model to quantify the costs (in Australian dollars) over three years for government health system funders. RESULTS: All interventions, plus standard care, produced similar health outcomes (mean of 1.84 QALYs gained over 105 weeks). Caseload midwifery was the lowest cost option at $15 587 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15 269, 15 905), followed by routine induction of labour ($16 257, 95% CI 15 989, 16 536), and chart audit ($16 325, 95% CI 15 979, 16 671). All produced lower costs on average than standard care ($16 905, 95% CI 16 551, 17 259). Caseload midwifery would produce the greatest savings of $172.6 million over three years if implemented for all low-risk nulliparous women in Australia. CONCLUSIONS: Caseload midwifery presents the best value for reducing caesarean delivery rates of the options considered. Routine induction of labour at 39 weeks and chart audit would also reduce costs compared to standard care.

Effects of Probiotics on Necrotizing Enterocolitis, Sepsis, Intraventricular Hemorrhage, Mortality, Length of Hospital Stay, and Weight Gain in Very Preterm Infants: A Meta-Analysis.

Probiotics are increasingly used as a supplement to prevent adverse health outcomes in preterm infants. We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and subgroup analysis of findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the magnitude of the effect of the probiotics on health outcomes among very-low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants. Relevant articles from January 2003 to June 2017 were selected from a broad range of databases, including Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Studies were included if they used an RCT design, involved a VLBW infant (birthweight <1500 g or gestational age <32 wk) population, included a probiotic intervention group, measured necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) as a primary outcome, and measured sepsis, mortality, length of hospital stay, weight gain, and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) as additional outcomes. The initial database search yielded 132 potentially relevant articles and 32 (n = 8998 infants) RCTs were included in the final meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was used to evaluate the effects of the moderators on the outcome variables. In the probiotics group, it was found that NEC was reduced by 37% (95% CI: 0.51%, 0.78%), sepsis by 37% (95% CI: 0.72%, 0.97%), mortality by 20% (95% CI: 0.67%, 0.95%), and length of hospital stay by 3.77 d (95% CI: -5.94, -1.60 d). These findings were all significant when compared with the control group. There was inconsistent use of strain types among some of the studies. The results indicate that probiotic consumption can significantly reduce the risk of developing medical complications associated with NEC and sepsis, reduce mortality and length of hospital stay, and promote weight gain in VLBW infants. Probiotics are more effective when taken in breast milk and formula form, consumed for <6 wk, administered with a dosage of <109 CFU/d, and include multiple strains. Probiotics are not effective in reducing the incidence of IVH in VLBW infants.

Developing a Core Competency Model and Educational Framework for Primary Maternity Services: a national consensus approach.

BACKGROUND: An appropriately educated and competent workforce is crucial to an effective health care system. The National Health Workforce Taskforce (now Health Workforce Australia) and the Maternity Services Inter-Jurisdictional Committee funded a project to develop Core Competencies and Educational Framework for Primary Maternity Services in Australia. These competencies recognise the interdisciplinary nature of maternity care in Australia where care is provided by general practitioners, obstetricians and midwives as well as other professionals. PARTICIPANTS: Key stakeholders from professional organisations and providers of services related to maternity care and consumers of services. METHODS: A national consensus approach was undertaken using consultation processes with a Steering Committee, a wider Reference Group and public consultation. FINDINGS: A national Core Competencies and Educational Framework for Primary Maternity Services in Australia was developed through an iterative process with a range of key stakeholders. There are a number of strategies that may assist in the integration of these into primary maternity service provider professional groups' education and practice. CONCLUSIONS: The Core Competencies and Educational Framework are based on an interprofessional approach to learning and primary maternity service practice. They have sought to value professional expertise and stimulate awareness and respect for the roles of all primary maternity service providers. The competencies and framework described in this paper are now a critical component of Australian maternity services as they are included in actions in the newly released National Maternity Services Plan and thus have relevance for all providers of Australian maternity services.

National program for depression associated with childbirth: the Australian experience.

Routine screening was introduced as a joint research/public-health initiative across 43 health services in Australia, funded by beyondblue, the National Australian Depression Initiative. This program included assessing risk factors and prevalence of depression in perinatal women. Other objectives included increasing awareness of the condition, training of relevant staff, and assessing the feasibility of a screening program. Women were screened antenatally and postnatally with a demographic questionnaire and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. A subgroup of women and health professionals was surveyed. Over 40,000 women participated directly in the program. Data and issues for specific groups are presented. There was a high level of acceptability to women and health professionals involved. Screening is acceptable and feasible as part of the mental-health management of perinatal women. It needs to be supplemented with information for women and education and support for staff.

Acceptability of routine screening for perinatal depression.

BACKGROUND: To assess the acceptability of routine screening for perinatal depression. METHOD: Postnatal women (n=860) and health professionals (n=916) were surveyed after 3 years of routine perinatal (antenatal and postnatal) use of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). RESULTS: Over 90% of women had the screening explained to them and found the EPDS easy to complete; 85% had no difficulties completing it. Discomfort with screening was significantly related to having a higher EPDS score. A majority of health professionals using the EPDS was comfortable and found it useful. LIMITATIONS: The sample involved only maternity services supporting depression screening. In addition, the response rate from GPs was low. CONCLUSIONS: Routine screening with the EPDS is acceptable to most women and health professionals. Sensitive explanation, along with staff training and support, is essential in implementing depression screening.