IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2007.129353_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost savings from the provision of specific methods of contraception in a publicly funded program

Author

Listed:
  • Foster, D.G.
  • Rostovtseva, D.P.
  • Brindis, C.D.
  • Biggs, M.A.
  • Hulett, D.
  • Darney, P.D.

Abstract

Objectives. We examined the cost-effectiveness of contraceptive methods dispensed in 2003 to 955000 women in Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care and Treatment), California's publicly funded family planning program. Methods. We estimated the number of pregnancies averted by each contraceptive method and compared the cost of providing each method with the savings from averted pregnancies. Results. More than half of the 178000 averted pregnancies were attributable to oral contraceptives, one fifth to injectable methods, and one tenth each to the patch and barrier methods. The implant and intrauterine contraceptives were the most cost-effective, with cost savings of more than $7.00 for every $1.00 spent in services and supplies. Per $1.00 spent, injectable contraceptives yielded savings of $5.60; oral contraceptives, $4.07; the patch, $2.99; the vaginal ring, $2.55; barrier methods, $1.34; and emergency contraceptives, $1.43. Conclusions. All contraceptive methods were cost-effective - they saved more in public expenditures for unintended pregnancies than they cost to provide. Because no single method is clinically recommended to every woman, it is medically and fiscally advisable for public health programs to offer all contraceptive methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Foster, D.G. & Rostovtseva, D.P. & Brindis, C.D. & Biggs, M.A. & Hulett, D. & Darney, P.D., 2009. "Cost savings from the provision of specific methods of contraception in a publicly funded program," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(3), pages 446-451.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2007.129353_7
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.129353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2007.129353
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2007.129353?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2007.129353_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.