IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1996866809-814_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost of prematurity: A case-control study of twins vs singletons

Author

Listed:
  • Luke, B.
  • Bigger, H.R.
  • Leurgans, S.
  • Sietsema, D.

Abstract

Objectives. This study evaluated the extent to which morbidity and costs at birth were associated with plurality, gestational age, and birthweight with a sample of twins from a large urban hospital. Methods. Each twin infant was matched to two singleton infants (control [ctrl]-singletons) for payor status and race, and to one singleton infant (gestation [ga]-singleton) for payor status, race, and gestational age; after exclusion of infants who were transferred, the study population included 111 twins, 242 ctrl-singletons, and 106 ga-singletons. Data were stratified by five gestational categories and compared across study groups. Outcomes included birthweight, neonatal diagnoses, infant length of stay, infant costs per day, and total infant and total birth costs. Results. Total birth costs ranged from $280 146 at 25 to 27 weeks to $9803 at 39 to 42 weeks, decreasing with advancing gestation to means of $88 891 (twins), $43 041 (ga-singletons), and $9326 (ctrl- singletons). Twins did not differ from either group of singletons in prematurity-related diagnoses, length of stay, or costs until after 34 weeks' gestation. Conclusions. In this sample, prematurity, not plurality, was the predominant cost factor at birth. Compared with singletons, twins experienced increased morbidity and associated costs after 38 weeks' gestation.

Suggested Citation

  • Luke, B. & Bigger, H.R. & Leurgans, S. & Sietsema, D., 1996. "The cost of prematurity: A case-control study of twins vs singletons," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(6), pages 809-814.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1996:86:6:809-814_8
    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.

    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:1996:86:6:809-814_8. 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.