Patient costs for medication abortion: Results from a study of five clinical practices
In 2000, the FDA approved mifepristone as a medication abortion alternative. There is limited understanding of the patient costs associated with use of this method. Our objective was to determine total patient costs for medication abortion. This information may be useful for improving counseling and...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Women's health issues 2006, Vol.16 (1), p.4-13 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | In 2000, the FDA approved mifepristone as a medication abortion alternative. There is limited understanding of the patient costs associated with use of this method. Our objective was to determine total patient costs for medication abortion. This information may be useful for improving counseling and patient decision making.
We surveyed 212 women who received a medication abortion from a convenience sample of 5 health care practices. Patient costs including direct medical costs (pregnancy test costs, charges), direct nonmedical costs (child care, travel, lodging), and productivity losses (value of time away from work or other activities) were determined.
The mean total cost for medication abortion was $351 ($0–1,140). The average charge paid by women themselves for the procedure itself was $306. Three quarters of total costs were direct medical costs and almost one quarter was time away from work and other activities. Although nearly three quarters of the women were insured, only 1% used insurance to cover their abortion—many (44%) did not know if their insurance covered abortion.
This study provides descriptive information on patient costs associated with medication abortion that may be integrated into patient counseling to enhance informed decision making by women. The study raises questions about why women who report having insurance are not aware of whether their insurance will cover abortion and suggests that we are unclear about women’s and providers’ preferences for using insurance. We should continue to develop our knowledge of the clinical and nonclinical trade-offs for women choosing between abortion methods to benefit patient decision making. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1049-3867 1878-4321 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.whi.2005.07.006 |