IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1995854494-503_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The economic value of contraception: A comparison of 15 methods

Author

Listed:
  • Trussell, J.
  • Leveque, J.A.
  • Koenig, J.D.
  • London, R.
  • Borden, S.
  • Henneberry, J.
  • LaGuardia, K.D.
  • Stewart, F.
  • Wilson, T.G.
  • Wysocki, S.
  • Strauss, M.

Abstract

Objectives. The purpose of the study was to determine the clinical and economic impact of alternative contraceptive methods. Methods. Direct medical costs (method use, side effects, and unintended pregnancies) associated with 15 contraceptive methods were modeled from the perspectives of a private payer and a publicly funded program. Cost data were drawn from a national claims database and Medi-Cal. The main outcome measures included 1-year and 5-year costs and number of pregnancies avoided compared with use of no contraceptive method. Results. All 15 contraceptives were more effective and less costly than no method. Over 5 years, the copper-T IUD, vasectomy, the contraceptive implant, and the injectable contraceptive were the most cost- effective, saving $14 122, $13 899, $13 813, and $13 373, respectively, and preventing approximately the same number of pregnancies (4.2) per person. Because of their high failure rates, barrier methods, spermicides, withdrawal, and periodic abstinence were costly but still saved from $8933 to $12 239 over 5 years. Oral contraceptives fell between these groups, costing $1784 over 5 years, saving $12 879, and preventing 4.1 pregnancies. Conclusions. Contraceptives save health care resources by preventing unintended pregnancies. Up-front acquisition costs are inaccurate predictors of the total economic costs of competing contraceptive methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Trussell, J. & Leveque, J.A. & Koenig, J.D. & London, R. & Borden, S. & Henneberry, J. & LaGuardia, K.D. & Stewart, F. & Wilson, T.G. & Wysocki, S. & Strauss, M., 1995. "The economic value of contraception: A comparison of 15 methods," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 85(4), pages 494-503.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1995:85:4:494-503_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aurélia Lépine & Neeti Nundy & Maggie Kilbourne-Brook & Mariana Siapka & Fern Terris-Prestholt, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness of Introducing the SILCS Diaphragm in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.

    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:aph:ajpbhl:1995:85:4:494-503_9. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    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.