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
. 2021 Feb;103(2):107-112.
doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2020.11.009. Epub 2020 Nov 20.

Provision of contraceptive implants in school-based health centers: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Affiliations

Provision of contraceptive implants in school-based health centers: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Chi-Son Kim et al. Contraception. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of providing contraceptive implants in school-based health centers (SBHCs) compared to the practice of referring adolescents to non-SBHCs in New York City.

Study design: We developed a microsimulation model of teen pregnancy to estimate the cost-effectiveness of immediate provision of contraceptive implants at SBHCs over a 3-year time horizon. Model parameters were derived from both a retrospective chart review of patient data and published literature. The model projected the number of pregnancies as well as the total costs for each intervention scenario. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated using the public payer perspective, using direct costs only.

Results: The health care cost of immediate provision of contraceptive implants at SBHCs was projected to be $13,719 per person compared to $13,567 per person for delayed provision at the referral appointment over 3 years. However, immediate provision would prevent 78 more pregnancies per 1000 adolescents over 3 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for implementing in-school provision was $1940 per additional pregnancy prevented, which was less than the $4206.41 willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses showed that the cost-effectiveness conclusion was robust over a wide range of key model inputs.

Conclusion: Provision of contraceptive implants in SBHCs compared to non-SBHCs is cost-effective for preventing unintended teen pregnancy. Health care providers and policymakers should consider expanding this model of patient-centered health care delivery to other locations.

Keywords: Contraception; Cost-effectiveness; Health care delivery; School-based health center; Teen pregnancy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources