Early abortion in Ontario: options and costs
- PMID: 16643717
- DOI: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)32065-5
Early abortion in Ontario: options and costs
Abstract
Objective: Early abortions have been predominantly surgical for many years, but medical options with comparable efficacy and safety are now available. This study compares the costs of two medical options and two surgical options.
Methods: We used a clinical model to compare the costs in Ontario of four options for early abortion: medical abortion using either mifepristone or methotrexate, and surgical abortion by vacuum aspiration in either a hospital or a free-standing clinic. The cost analysis was conducted from the perspectives of society, the health care system, and the patient.
Results: From all perspectives, total costs were highest for hospital surgical abortion, followed by surgical abortion in a clinic. From the patient's perspective, total costs were higher for surgical abortion but direct costs (mainly for medications) were higher for medical abortion. The total cost of mifepristone and methotrexate abortion was equal if the price of mifepristone (200 mg) was $59.52. The model was robust but was sensitive to the price of mifepristone.
Conclusion: Early medical abortion costs less than early surgical abortion from the societal and health care system perspectives but more than surgical abortion from the patient's perspective. Surgical abortion costs more in hospitals than in free-standing clinics from the societal and health care system perspectives, but the costs are the same in both settings from the patient's perspective. No method for early abortion can be identified as best, and patients should be free to choose the option they prefer.
Comment in
-
Early abortion in Ontario: options and costs.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006 Jun;28(6):504. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32175-2. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006. PMID: 16857117 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Medical versus surgical abortion methods for pregnancy in China: a cost-minimization analysis.Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;72(4):257-63. doi: 10.1159/000328313. Epub 2011 Oct 13. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011. PMID: 21997301
-
Pregnancy interruption using mifepristone (RU-486). A new choice for women in the USA.J Nurse Midwifery. 1997 Mar-Apr;42(2):86-90. doi: 10.1016/s0091-2182(96)00154-1. J Nurse Midwifery. 1997. PMID: 9107115 Review.
-
Provider practice models for and costs of delivering medication abortion -- evidence from 11 US abortion care settings.Contraception. 2007 Jan;75(1):45-51. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2006.09.009. Epub 2006 Nov 14. Contraception. 2007. PMID: 17161124
-
[Ambulatory abortion, its advantages and economic effectiveness].Akush Ginekol (Mosk). 1992 Feb;(2):34-7. Akush Ginekol (Mosk). 1992. PMID: 1476225 Russian.
-
Early abortion. Update and implications for midwifery practice.J Nurse Midwifery. 1998 Nov-Dec;43(6):492-501. doi: 10.1016/s0091-2182(98)00057-3. J Nurse Midwifery. 1998. PMID: 9871382 Review.
Cited by
-
A Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Mifepristone-Misoprostol Medical Abortions in the First Year at the Regina General Hospital.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2021 Feb;43(2):211-218. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2020.08.008. Epub 2020 Aug 25. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2021. PMID: 33153943 Free PMC article.
-
Barriers to rural induced abortion services in Canada: findings of the British Columbia Abortion Providers Survey (BCAPS).PLoS One. 2013 Jun 28;8(6):e67023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067023. Print 2013. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 23840578 Free PMC article.
-
The mesoeconomics of abortion: A scoping review and analysis of the economic effects of abortion on health systems.PLoS One. 2020 Nov 4;15(11):e0237227. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237227. eCollection 2020. PLoS One. 2020. PMID: 33147223 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical