Postdates pregnancy in an indigent population: The financial burden

• Published in: American journal of obstetrics and gynecology Vol. 188; no. 5; pp. 1214 - 1216
• Main Authors: Fonseca, Linda, Monga, Manju, Silva, Jeannie
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Philadelphia, PA Mosby, Inc 01.05.2003; Elsevier
• Subjects: Adult; Analysis. Health state; Biological and medical sciences; biophysical profile; Diseases of mother, fetus and pregnancy; Epidemiology; Female; financial burden; General aspects; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Health Care Costs; Humans; Medical sciences; Postdates pregnancy; Poverty; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Prolonged; Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta; Prenatal Care - economics; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Ultrasonography, Prenatal - economics; ultrasound; Postdates pregnancy; ultrasound; biophysical profile; financial burden; Sonography; Human; Pregnancy disorders; Prolonged pregnancy; Biophysics; Induced delivery; Surveillance; Echography; Fetus; Cost analysis; Comparative study; Public health
• ISSN: 0002-9378; 1097-6868
• DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.287

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the comparative financial burden of twice-weekly fetal testing from 41 weeks of gestation until delivery, as compared with early dating ultrasound evaluation in an indigent population. Study Design: All women who were seen for antepartum testing for postdating pregnancy at Lyndon Baines Johnson Hospital were enrolled. Patient age, parity, gestational age at initiation of prenatal care, the number of prenatal visits, gestational age at first ultrasound scan, and the number of biophysical profiles that were performed before delivery were recorded. The labor and delivery database was searched for all deliveries at >41 weeks of gestation. The charge for a single ultrasound scan at <20 weeks of gestation was compared with twice-weekly testing in the population as a whole with the use of three strategies (no dating ultrasound scans and biophysical profiles until delivery, routine dating ultrasound scan and routine induction at 41 weeks of gestation, and current practice at our institution). Results: One hundred twenty-seven subjects with postdated pregnancy were enrolled (mean age, 25.2 years; median parity, 0 [range, 0-6]). The mean gestational age at the initiation of prenatal care was 21.2 ± 10.5 weeks. Forty-seven women (38.0%) initiated care at <20 weeks. The mean number of biophysical profiles performed before delivery was 1.5 ± 1.34; the mean gestational age at delivery was 42.1 ± 0.87 weeks (spontaneous labor, 39.6%; induced labor, 40.4%). The charge for a biophysical profile is $492.90 and $551.00 for a 20-week ultrasound scan; there is no difference in the charge for induced or spontaneous labor. During the 4-month study period, 1638 patients were delivered at our hospital; 341 patients were delivered at >41 weeks of gestation. The estimated financial burden of antenatal testing of 341 patients from 41 weeks to delivery was calculated to be $252,118, compared with $902,538 for a single ultrasound scan at 20 weeks for the entire population of 1638 patients. The estimated financial burden of current practice (10% of patients with no prenatal care, 38% of patients with examination at <20 weeks who were eligible for dating ultrasound scanning, and 37% of patients with examination for postdate testing) was $402,457. Conclusion: Patients who were seen for postdate antepartum testing in an indigent population lack early initiation of prenatal care and early ultrasound scans. Because on average only 1.5 biophysical profiles are performed per patient before delivery, routine early ultrasound scanning and routine induction at 41 weeks of gestation would add considerable financial burden to the system. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1214-6.)