Search

Objective: To provide U.S. case-based preeclampsia health care cost estimates for mothers and infants from a U.S. payer perspective, with comparisons with both uncomplicated and hypertensive pregnancies., Methods: Electronic health record and billing data from a large regional integrated health care system in Pennsylvania were used to identify mother-singleton infant pairs with deliveries between 2010 and 2015. Data on clinical care and costs using actual payment amounts were compiled from 20 weeks of gestation to 6 weeks postdelivery for mothers and birth to 12 months for infants. Three defined pregnancy study cohorts, uncomplicated, hypertension and preeclampsia, were matched using a 1:1:1 ratio on the basis of maternal age, parity, body mass index, and comorbidities. Costs per pregnancy were calculated in 2015 dollars and preeclampsia incremental costs estimated by subtracting the average cost of the matched cohorts., Results: The final study population included 712 matched mother-infant pairs in each cohort. The mean combined maternal and infant medical care costs in the preeclampsia cohort of $41,790 were significantly higher than those for the uncomplicated cohort of $13,187 (P<.001) and hypertension cohort of $24,182 (P<.001), and were largely driven by differences in the infant costs. The mean infant cost in the preeclampsia cohort were $28,898, in the uncomplicated cohort $3,669 and $12,648 in the hypertension cohort (P<.001). Mothers with preeclampsia delivered 3 weeks earlier (median 36.5 weeks of gestation) than women in the uncomplicated cohort and more than 2 weeks earlier than women in the hypertension cohort. A significantly larger percentage of women with preeclampsia and their infants experienced adverse events (13.9% for mothers and 14.6% for infants) compared with unaffected women (4.1% and 0.7%) and those with hypertension (9.4% and 4.8%), respectively (P<.001)., Conclusion: The economic burden of preeclampsia health care is significant with the main cost drivers being infant health care costs associated with lower gestational age at birth and greater adverse outcomes., Funding Source: This study is funded by Progenity, Inc.

Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of various preeclampsia screening and aspirin prophylaxis strategies, including a strategy based on biomarker and ultrasound measures., Methods: We designed a decision analysis to compare preeclampsia-related costs and effects of four strategies for aspirin use in pregnancy initiated before 16 weeks of gestation to prevent preeclampsia. The four strategies were: 1) no aspirin use, 2) biomarker and ultrasound measure-predicated use, 3) use based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, and 4) universal aspirin use. Our outcomes were preeclampsia-related costs and number of cases per 100,000 pregnant women. Using a threshold of $90,843 per case of preeclampsia, one-way, two-way, and Monte-Carlo sensitivity analyses incorporating varying probabilities of risk reduction due to aspirin use, aspirin-related side effects, and costs were performed to identify ranges at which costs and risks of aspirin-related complications shifted the preferred strategy., Results: Compared with universal aspirin administration, the use of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines is associated with $8,011,725 higher health care costs and 346 additional cases of preeclampsia per 100,000 pregnant women; biomarker and ultrasound screening is associated with an additional $19,216,551 and 308 additional cases. Similarly, no aspirin use is associated with an increased cost of $18,750,381 and 762 additional cases. Thus, universal aspirin use dominated all three other strategies. In a Monte Carlo simulation of 10,000 pregnant women, universal aspirin was the preferred strategy in 91% of simulations. The U.S. Preventive Task Force screen was preferred in 8.5% of simulations, and biomarker and ultrasound screening and no aspirin were preferred in 0% and 0.5% of simulations, respectively., Conclusion: Over a broad range of assumptions, universal aspirin administration is associated with fewer cases of preeclampsia and fewer costs relative to no aspirin administration and aspirin administration based on serum and ultrasound measures or clinical risk factors.

Objective: To develop a decision model to evaluate the risks, benefits, and costs of different approaches to aspirin prophylaxis for the approximately 4 million pregnant women in the United States annually., Methods: We created a decision model to evaluate four approaches to aspirin prophylaxis in the United States: no prophylaxis, prophylaxis per American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) recommendations, prophylaxis per U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, and universal prophylaxis. We included the costs associated with aspirin, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and potential aspirin-associated adverse effects. TreeAge Pro 2011 was used to perform the analysis., Results: The estimated rate of preeclampsia would be 4.18% without prophylaxis compared with 4.17% with the College approach in which 0.35% (n=14,000) of women receive aspirin, 3.83% with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force approach in which 23.5% (n=940,800) receive aspirin, and 3.81% with universal prophylaxis. Compared with no prophylaxis, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force approach would save $377.4 million in direct medical care costs annually, and universal prophylaxis would save $365 million assuming 4 million births each year. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force approach is the most cost-beneficial in 79% of probabilistic simulations. Assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000 per neonatal quality-adjusted life-year gained, the universal approach is the most cost-effective in more than 99% of simulations., Conclusion: Both the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force approach and universal prophylaxis would reduce morbidity, save lives, and lower health care costs in the United States to a much greater degree than the approach currently recommended by the College.