IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0273179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How much does it cost to implement the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative training step in the United States and Mexico?

Author

Listed:
  • Kendall J Arslanian
  • Mireya Vilar-Compte
  • Graciela Teruel
  • Annel Lozano-Marrufo
  • Elizabeth C Rhodes
  • Amber Hromi-Fiedler
  • Erika García
  • Rafael Pérez-Escamilla

Abstract

The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) has been shown to increase breastfeeding rates, improving maternal and child health and driving down healthcare costs via the benefits of breastfeeding. Despite its clear public health and economic benefits, one key challenge of implementing the BFHI is procuring funding to sustain the program. To address this need and help healthcare stakeholders advocate for funds, we developed a structured method to estimate the first-year cost of implementing BFHI staff training, using the United States (US) and Mexico as case studies. The method used a hospital system-wide costing approach, rather than costing an individual hospital, to estimate the average per birth BFHI staff training costs in US and Mexican hospitals with greater than 500 annual births. It was designed to utilize publicly available data. Therefore, we used the 2014 American Hospital Association dataset (n = 1401 hospitals) and the 2018 Mexican Social Security Institute dataset (n = 154 hospitals). Based on our review of the literature, we identified three key training costs and modelled scenarios via an econometric approach to assess the sensitivity of the estimates based on hospital size, level of obstetric care, and training duration and intensity. Our results indicated that BFHI staff training costs ranged from USD 7.27–125.39 per birth in the US and from PPP 2.68–6.14 per birth in Mexico, depending on hospital size and technological capacity. Estimates differed between countries because the US had more hospital staff per birth and higher staff salaries than Mexico. Future studies should examine whether similar, publicly available data exists in other countries to test if our method can be replicated or adapted for use in additional settings. Healthcare stakeholders can better advocate for the funding to implement the entire BFHI program if they are able to generate informed cost estimates for training as we did here.

Suggested Citation

  • Kendall J Arslanian & Mireya Vilar-Compte & Graciela Teruel & Annel Lozano-Marrufo & Elizabeth C Rhodes & Amber Hromi-Fiedler & Erika García & Rafael Pérez-Escamilla, 2022. "How much does it cost to implement the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative training step in the United States and Mexico?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0273179
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273179
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273179
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273179&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0273179?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, H. III, 1996. "Physician demand for leisure: implications for cesarean section rates," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 233-242, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Halla, Martin & Mayr, Harald & Pruckner, Gerald J. & García-Gómez, Pilar, 2020. "Cutting fertility? Effects of cesarean deliveries on subsequent fertility and maternal labor supply," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    2. Joshua S. Gans & Andrew Leigh, 2012. "Bargaining Over Labour: Do Patients Have Any Power?," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(281), pages 182-194, June.
    3. Gans, Joshua S. & Leigh, Andrew & Varganova, Elena, 2007. "Minding the shop: The case of obstetrics conferences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 1458-1465, October.
    4. Grant, Darren, 2022. "The “Quiet Revolution” and the cesarean section in the United States," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    5. Carine Milcent & Julie Rochut, 2009. "Tarification hospitalière et pratique médicale. La pratique de la césarienne en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 60(2), pages 489-506.
    6. Bachner, Florian & Halla, Martin & Pruckner, Gerald J., 2024. "Do Empty Beds Cause Cesarean Deliveries?," IZA Discussion Papers 16981, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Cheng Huang & Xiaojing Ma & Shiying Zhang & Qingguo Zhao, 2020. "Numerological preferences, timing of births and the long-term effect on schooling," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 33(2), pages 531-554, April.
    8. Tonei, Valentina, 2019. "Mother’s mental health after childbirth: Does the delivery method matter?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 182-196.
    9. Aleksandr Proshin & Alexandre Cazenave-Lacroutz & Zeynep Or & Lise Rochaix, 2018. "Impact of Diagnosis Related Group Refinement on the Choice Between Scheduled Caesarean Section and Normal Delivery: Recent Evidence from France," PSE Working Papers halshs-01812107, HAL.
    10. De Luca, Giacomo & Lisi, Domenico & Martorana, Marco & Siciliani, Luigi, 2021. "Does higher Institutional Quality improve the Appropriateness of Healthcare Provision?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    11. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García-Prado, 2012. "Non-elective cesarean sections in public hospitals: hospital capacity constraints and doctor´s incentives," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 1212, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    12. Jimena Soledad Ferraro & Alan Acosta & Khare Shagun, 2021. "Physician convenience and cesarean section delivery," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4469, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    13. Carolina Melo & Naercio Menezes‐Filho, 2024. "The effect of birth timing manipulation around carnival on birth indicators in Brazil," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(9), pages 2013-2058, September.
    14. Fabbri, Daniele & Monfardini, Chiara & Castaldini, Ilaria & Protonotari, Adalgisa, 2016. "Cesarean section and the manipulation of exact delivery time," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(7), pages 780-789.
    15. Francese, Maura & Piacenza, Massimiliano & Romanelli, Marzia & Turati, Gilberto, 2014. "Understanding inappropriateness in health spending: The role of regional policies and institutions in caesarean deliveries," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 262-277.
    16. Costa-Ramón, Ana María & Rodríguez-González, Ana & Serra-Burriel, Miquel & Campillo-Artero, Carlos, 2018. "It's about time: Cesarean sections and neonatal health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 46-59.
    17. Ana Costa-Ramón & Mika Kortelainen & Ana Rodríguez-González & Lauri Sääksvuori, 2022. "The Long-Run Effects of Cesarean Sections," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(6), pages 2048-2085.
    18. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García Prado, 2016. "Non-elective C-sections in public hospitals: capacity constraints and doctor incentives," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(49), pages 4719-4731, October.
    19. Lo, Joan C., 2008. "Financial incentives do not always work--An example of cesarean sections in Taiwan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 121-129, October.
    20. Valentina Tonei, 2017. "Mother’s health after childbirth: does delivery method matter?," Discussion Papers 17/11, Department of Economics, University of York.

    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:plo:pone00:0273179. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.