Search

Cesarean delivery rates in California and the United States rose by 50% between 1998 and 2008 and vary widely among states, regions, hospitals, and health care providers. The leading driver of both the rise and the variation is first-birth cesarean deliveries performed during labor. With the large increase in primary cesarean deliveries, repeat cesarean delivery now has emerged as the largest single indication. The economic costs, health risks, and negligible benefits for most mothers and newborns of these higher rates point to the urgent need for a new approach to working with women in labor. This commentary analyzes the high rates and wide variations and presents evidence of costs and risks associated with cesarean deliveries (complete discussion provided in the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative White Paper at www.cmqcc.org/white_paper). All stakeholders need to ask whether society can afford the costs and complications of this high cesarean delivery rate and whether they can work together toward solutions. The factors involved in the rise in cesarean deliveries point to the need for a multistrategy approach, because no single strategy is likely to be effective or lead to sustained change. We outline complementary strategies for reducing the rates and offer recommendations including clinical improvement strategies with careful examination of labor management practices; payment reform to eliminate negative or perverse incentives; education to recognize the value of vaginal birth; and full transparency through public reporting and continued public engagement.

Objective: To evaluate whether the use of 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate for the prevention of recurrent preterm deliveries is cost-effective., Methods: Using decision-analysis modeling, we compared the cost-effectiveness of using 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate in four subgroups: 1) Prior preterm deliveries less than 32 weeks; 2) prior preterm deliveries 32-37 weeks; 3) prior term delivery; and 4) no prior delivery. Each subgroup was compared with a "no treatment" group. Costs included those for 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, hospital admissions, and complications from preterm deliveries. The main outcome measures include cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained and the number of preterm deliveries prevented. Secondary outcomes include neonatal complications prevented. One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: The use of 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate for the prevention of preterm deliveries result in cost-savings in women with prior preterm deliveries less than 32 weeks and 32-37 weeks. The sensitivity analyses revealed the model to be robust over a wide range of values for evaluated variables., Conclusion: Within our baseline assumptions, 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate was associated with cost-savings when used for the prevention of preterm deliveries in women with prior preterm deliveries.

Objective: To determine the cost-effective method of delivery, from society's perspective, in patients who have had a previous cesarean., Methods: We completed an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a trial of labor relative to cesarean using a computerized model for a hypothetical 30-year old parturient. The model incorporated data from peer-reviewed studies, actual hospital costs, and utilities to quantify health-related quality of life. A threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-years was used to define cost-effective., Results: The model was most sensitive to the probability of successful vaginal delivery. If the probability of successful vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) was less than 0.65, elective repeat cesarean was both less costly and more effective than a trial of labor. Between 0.65 and 0.74, elective repeat cesarean was cost-effective (the cost-effectiveness ratio was less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-years), because, although it cost more than VBAC, it was offset by improved outcomes. Between 0.74 and 0.76, trial of labor was cost-effective. If the probability of successful vaginal delivery exceeded 0.76, trial of labor became less costly and more effective. Costs associated with a moderately morbid neonatal outcome, as well as the probabilities of infant morbidity occurring, heavily impacted our results., Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness of VBAC depends on the likelihood of successful trial of labor. Our modeling suggests that a trial of labor is cost-effective if the probability of successful vaginal delivery is greater than 0.74. Improved algorithms are needed to more precisely estimate the likelihood that a patient with a previous cesarean will have a successful vaginal delivery.