Assessing the cost-effectiveness of contraceptive methods from a health provider perspective: case study of Kiambu County Hospital, Kenya

BACKGROUND

Kenya's contraceptive prevalence rate at 53% is low, with wide disparity among the 47 counties that make up the country (2-76%). Significant financial investment is required to maintain this level of contraceptive use and increase it to levels seen in more developed countries. This is in the context of a growing population, declining donor funding, limited fiscal space and competing health challenges. Studies have shown that long-term contraceptive methods are more cost-effective than short-term methods. However, it is unclear if this applies in Sub-Saharan Africa; with limited financial resources, lower social economic status among users, and publicly managed commodity supply chains, in vertical programs largely dependent on donor funding. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of contraceptive methods used in Kenya.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was undertaken in a county referral hospital in mid-2018. Purposive sampling of 5 family planning clinic providers and systematic sampling of 15 service delivery sessions per method was done. Questionnaire aided interviews were done to determine inputs required to provide services and direct observation to measure time taken to provide each method. Cost per method was determined using activity based costing, effectiveness via couple year protection conversion factors, and cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per couple year protection.

RESULTS

The intra-uterine copper device was most cost-effective at 4.87 US dollars per couple year protection followed by the 2-Rod Implant at 6.36, the 1-Rod Implant at 9.50, DMPA at 23.68, while the combined oral contraceptive pills were least cost-effective at 38.60 US dollars per couple year protection. Long-term methods attracted a higher initial cost of service delivery when compared to short-term methods.

CONCLUSION

Long-term contraceptive methods are more cost-effective. As such, investing in long-term contraceptives would save costs despite higher initial cost of service delivery. It is recommended, therefore, that Sub-Saharan Africa countries allocate more domestic financial resources towards availability of contraceptive services, preferably with multi-year planning and budget commitment. The resources should be invested in a wide range of interventions shown to increase uptake of long-term methods, including reduction of cost barriers for the younger population, thereby increasing contraceptive prevalence rates.

Cost-effectiveness analyses and their role in improving healthcare strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this era of healthcare reform, attention is focused on increasing the quality of care and access to services, while simultaneously reducing the cost. Economic evaluations can play an important role in translating research to evidence-based practice and policy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and its utility for clinical and policy decision making among U.S. obstetricians and gynecologists is reviewed. Three case examples demonstrating the value of this methodology in decision making are considered. A discussion of the methodologic principles of CEA, the advantages, and the limitations of the methodology are presented.

SUMMARY

CEA can play an important role in evidence-based decision making, with value for clinicians and policy makers alike. These studies are of particular interest in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, in which uncertainty from epidemiologic or clinical trials exists, or multiple perspectives need to be considered (maternal, neonatal, and societal). As with all research, it is essential that economic evaluations are conducted according to established methodologic standards. Interpretation and application of results should occur with a clear understanding of both the value and the limitations of economic evaluations.

The price of emergency contraception in the United States: what is the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate versus single-dose levonorgestrel?

BACKGROUND

Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a novel form of emergency contraception (EC) that appears to be more effective than the prevailing method, single-dose levonorgestrel (LNG). This study examines the cost-efficacy of UPA compared with LNG.

STUDY DESIGN

A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of UPA versus LNG in preventing unintended pregnancy when taken within 120 h of unprotected intercourse. Univariate and bivariate sensitivity analyses, as well as Monte Carlo simulation and threshold analyses, were performed.

RESULTS

Utilizing UPA instead of LNG would result in 37,589 fewer unintended pregnancies per 4,176,572 estimated US annual EC uses (UPA 54,295 pregnancies; LNG 91,884 pregnancies) and a societal savings of $116.3 million annually. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analyses suggest a 96% probability that UPA is more cost-effective at a willingness to pay $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year.

CONCLUSIONS

UPA is cost-effective in preventing unintended pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. Efforts should be promoted to increase access to UPA.

The cost of unintended pregnancy in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Despite the many contraceptive options available in the United States, nearly half (49%) of the 6.4 million pregnancies each year are unintended; these represent a significant cost to the health care system.

METHODS

The total number of unintended pregnancies and their outcomes were obtained from the literature. Direct medical costs were estimated for each unintended pregnancy outcome.

RESULTS

The direct medical costs of unintended pregnancies were US$5 billion in 2002. Direct medical cost savings due to contraceptive use were US$19 billion.

DISCUSSION

Unintended pregnancies are a costly problem in the United States. Contraceptive use can reduce direct and indirect costs; hence, payers may realize cost savings by providing coverage of contraceptive products.

Risk of pregnancy and external validity in clinical trials of emergency contraception

OBJECTIVES

To compare women who enroll in emergency contraception (EC) trials to those who decline and to understand why eligible women decline to participate.

METHODS

Data were collected from all women seeking EC (n = 5,787) at three clinics in the USA and UK during a period of nearly 1 year (from September 1997 to August 1998). The main outcome measures were pregnancy risk calculated by adjusted cycle day of ovulation.

RESULTS

Enrolled and non-enrolled women had similar mean ages and similar mean cycle lengths. However, the enrolled and non-enrolled groups were different with respect to adjusted cycle day of unprotected sexual intercourse (UPSI), the regularity of their cycles, recent hormone use, breastfeeding, the number of other acts of UPSI they had engaged in during the same cycle, and their willingness to participate in the study. Expected pregnancy risk among enrolled patients was higher than among non-enrolled EC seekers (6.5% vs 5.0%, p<0.001, calculated using Dixon conception probabilities, and 5.4% vs 4.6%, p = 0.086, calculated using Trussell conception probabilities). Unwillingness to take part in the study was the most common reason women did not enrol in the trial. Otherwise-eligible women most often declined to enrol because they were concerned about the effectiveness of the trial regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Women in EC trials are likely to face higher pregnancy risk than the general population. Clinical trials might overestimate the number of pregnancies averted by treatment because the number of expected pregnancies in trial populations is not representative of the population of all EC seekers. This information could be useful in projecting the public health impact of expanded EC access.

Cost savings from use of emergency contraceptive pills in Australia

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception, which prevents pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse, has the potential to reduce significantly the incidence of unintended pregnancy and the consequent need for abortion and to reduce medical care costs.

AIM

To determine the savings generated by use of Postinor-2, the levonorgestrel regimen of emergency hormonal contraception, in Australia.

METHODS

We modelled the cost savings when women obtain Postinor-2 directly from a pharmacist where cost savings are measured as the cost of pregnancies averted by use of Postinor-2 per dollar spent on Postinor-2.

RESULTS

Each dollar spent on a single treatment with Postinor-2 saves A$2.27-A$3.81 in direct medical care expenditures on unintended pregnancy depending on assumptions about savings from costs avoided by preventing mistimed births. Postinor-2 is cost-saving even under the least favourable assumption that mistimed births when prevented today occur 2 years later. Results are robust even to large changes in model input parameters.

CONCLUSION

Emergency contraception is cost saving. More extensive use of emergency contraception could save considerable medical and social costs by reducing unintended pregnancies, which are expensive.