Cost-effectiveness of induction of labor at 39 weeks vs expectant management by cervical examination.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses have demonstrated the cost effectiveness of elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation for healthy nulliparous people. However, elective induction of labor is resource intensive, and optimal resource allocation requires a thorough understanding of which subgroups of patients will benefit most. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation is more cost-effective in patients with favorable or unfavorable cervical examinations. STUDY DESIGN: We constructed 2 decision analysis models using TreeAge software: one modeling induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation vs expectant management for a group of nulliparous patients with unfavorable cervical examinations and the other modeling induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation vs expectant management for a group with favorable cervical examinations. Estimates of cost, probability, and health state utility were derived from the literature. Based on previous literature, we assumed that people with favorable cervical examinations would have a lower baseline rate of cesarean delivery and higher rates of spontaneous labor. RESULTS: In our base case analysis, induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation was cost-effective for patients with unfavorable cervical examinations, but not for patients with favorable cervical examinations. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was 50-fold lower for people with unfavorable cervical examinations ($2150 vs $115,100). Induction of labor resulted in 3885 fewer cesarean deliveries and 58 fewer stillbirths per 100,000 patients for those with unfavorable examinations, whereas induction of labor resulted in 2293 fewer cesarean deliveries and 48 fewer stillbirths with labor induction for those with favorable cervical examinations. The results were sensitive to multiple inputs, including the likelihood of cesarean delivery, the cost of induction, the cost of vaginal or cesarean delivery, and the probability of spontaneous labor. In Monte Carlo analysis, the base case findings held true for 64.1% of modeled scenarios for patients with unfavorable cervixes and 55.4% of modeled scenarios for patients with favorable cervixes. CONCLUSION: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation may be cost-effective for patients with unfavorable cervical examinations, but not for patients with favorable cervical examinations. This result was driven by the likelihood of labor in patients with favorable cervical examinations, and the resultant avoidance of prolonged pregnancy and its complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and stillbirths. Health systems may wish to prioritize patients with unfavorable cervical examinations for elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation, which may be opposite to common practice.

Making the financial case for immediate postpartum intrauterine device: a budget impact analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines support inpatient postpartum intrauterine device insertion. However, inpatient placement remains infrequent, in part because of inconsistent private insurance reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore how the payer's costs and number of unintended pregnancies associated with a postpartum intrauterine device differed on the basis of placement timing. STUDY DESIGN: Using a decision tree model and following a hypothetical cohort of people who intend to use an intrauterine device after their delivery, we conducted a cost analysis comparing the planned approach of inpatient vs outpatient postpartum insertion. Using a 2-year time horizon, the probability and cost estimates were derived from literature review. Our primary outcome was the total accrued costs to the payer. Secondarily, we examined the rates of early repeat pregnancy and sensitivity to estimates of key inputs, including the expulsion rates and the intrauterine device cost. RESULTS: Although an inpatient intrauterine device placement's upfront costs were higher, the total cost of this approach was lower. Including the costs of managing expulsions and complications, our model suggests that for every 1000 people desiring a postpartum intrauterine device, the intended inpatient intrauterine device placement resulted in total cost savings of $211,100 and the prevention of 37 additional pregnancies compared with outpatient placement. The inpatient cost savings were superior to the outpatient savings, largely because of a known high proportion not returning for outpatient placement and the resulting higher number of unintended pregnancies among the patients desiring outpatient placement. In sensitivity analyses, we found that the total cost to the payer was sensitive to the probability of expulsion after immediate postpartum intrauterine device placement. CONCLUSION: For beneficiaries desiring postpartum intrauterine device, payers are likely to save money by fully reimbursing inpatient intrauterine device placement rather than incentivizing placement at the frequently missed postpartum visit. These results support the financial case for private insurers to fully and separately reimburse (ie, "unbundle" from the single payment for delivery) inpatient postpartum intrauterine device placement.