Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Mar;99(3):446-51.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.129353. Epub 2008 Aug 13.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Diana Greene Foster et al. Am J Public Health. 2009 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: We examined the cost-effectiveness of contraceptive methods dispensed in 2003 to 955,000 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 178,000 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Cost-efficiency of contraceptive methods provided by California's Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care, Treatment) program, 2003.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2006;38:90–96 - PubMed
    1. Amaral G, Foster DG, Biggs A, Jasik C, Judd S, Brindis C. Public savings from the prevention of unintended pregnancy: a cost analysis of family planning services in California. Health Serv Res 2007;42:1960–1980 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Forrest JD, Samara R. Impact of publicly funded contraceptive services on unintended pregnancies and implications for Medicaid expenditures. Fam Plann Perspect 1996;28:188–195 - PubMed
    1. Forrest JD, Singh S. The impact of public-sector expenditures for contraceptive services in California. Fam Plann Perspect 1990;22:161–168 - PubMed
    1. Trussell J, Leveque JA, Koenig JD, et al. The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods. Am J Public Health 1995;85:494–503 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances