La Trobe

Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery): a cost analysis using results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial

Download (288.22 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2024-08-15, 02:50 authored by Emily J Callander, Hannah Jackson, Helen McLachlanHelen McLachlan, Mary-Ann Davey, Della ForsterDella Forster

Introduction: Caseload midwifery (continuity of midwifery carer) offers benefits including lower caesarean section rates, lower risks of preterm birth and stillbirth, and improved maternal satisfaction of care. Despite these advantages, concerns about additional costs hinder widespread implementation. This study examines the cost of caseload midwifery compared with standard maternity care from the perspective of both public hospitals and public funders.Methods: A cost analysis was conducted using data from a randomised controlled trial of 2314 low-risk pregnant women in Melbourne, Australia. Women randomised to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a primary midwife, with some care provided by a ‘back-up’ midwife. Women in standard care received midwifery-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care or community-based medical care. The cost analysis compared differences in mean costs of health resources to public hospitals and to public funders. Additionally, a budget impact analysis estimated total costs to the health system between 2023 and 2027.Results: For public hospitals, there was no significant difference in overall costs between women receiving caseload midwifery (n=1146) versus standard care (n=1151) ($A12 363 (SD: $A4967) vs $A12 323 (SD: $A7404); p=0.85). Conversely, public funders incurred lower expenditures for women receiving caseload midwifery ($A20 330 (SD: $A8312)) versus standard care ($A21 637 (SD: $A11 818); p <0.001). The budget impact analysis estimated savings of $A625 million to the health system over the next 5 years with expanded access to caseload midwifery in Australia.Conclusion: Caseload midwifery in low-risk women is cost-neutral to public hospitals and cost-saving to public funders.Tweetable abstractContinuity of midwifery for low-risk women reduces costs to public funders, with no additional costs to hospitals.

Funding

Funding was received from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (Project Grant Number: 433040).

History

Publication Date

2024-06-02

Journal

Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine

Volume

4

Issue

2

Article Number

e000008

Pagination

8p.

Publisher

BMJ

ISSN

2097-0587

Rights Statement

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Usage metrics

    Journal Articles

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC