IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i6d10.1007_s40258-017-0344-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Two Alternative Models of Maternity Care in Ireland

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher G. Fawsitt

    (University of Bristol
    Cork University Business School, University College Cork
    University College Cork)

  • Jane Bourke

    (Cork University Business School, University College Cork)

  • Aileen Murphy

    (Cork University Business School, University College Cork)

  • Brendan McElroy

    (Cork University Business School, University College Cork)

  • Jennifer E. Lutomski

    (Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center)

  • Rosemary Murphy

    (Cork University Business School, University College Cork)

  • Richard A. Greene

    (University College Cork)

Abstract

Background The Irish government has committed to expand midwifery-led care alongside consultant-led care nationally, although very little is known about the potential net benefits of this reconfiguration. Objectives To formally compare the costs and benefits of the major models of care in Ireland, with a view to informing priority setting using the contingent valuation technique and cost-benefit analysis. Methods A marginal payment scale willingness-to-pay question was adopted from an ex ante perspective. 450 pregnant women were invited to participate in the study. Cost estimates were collected primarily, describing the average cost of a package of care. Net benefit estimates were calculated over a 1-year cycle using a third-party payer perspective. Results To avoid midwifery-led care, women were willing to pay €821.13 (95% CI 761.66–1150.41); to avoid consultant-led care, women were willing to pay €795.06 (95% CI 695.51–921.15). The average cost of a package of consultant- and midwifery-led care was €1,762.12 (95% CI 1496.73–2027.51) and €1018.47 (95% CI 916.61–1120.33), respectively. Midwifery-led care ranked as the best use of resources, generating a net benefit of €1491.22 (95% CI 989.35–1991.93), compared with €123.23 (95% CI −376.58 to 621.42) for consultant-led care. Conclusions While both models of care are cost-beneficial, the decision to provide both alternatives may be constrained by resource issues. If only one alternative can be implemented then midwifery-led care should be undertaken for low-risk women, leaving consultant-led care for high-risk women. However, pursuing one alternative contradicts a key objective of government policy, which seeks to improve maternal choice. Ideally, multiple alternatives should be pursued.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher G. Fawsitt & Jane Bourke & Aileen Murphy & Brendan McElroy & Jennifer E. Lutomski & Rosemary Murphy & Richard A. Greene, 2017. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Two Alternative Models of Maternity Care in Ireland," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 785-794, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0344-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-017-0344-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-017-0344-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-017-0344-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Phil Shackley & Cam Donaldson, 2000. "Willingness to pay for publicly-financed health care: how should we use the numbers?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(15), pages 2015-2021.
    2. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    3. Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326, June.
    4. McIntosh, Emma & Clarke, Philip & Frew, Emma & Louviere, Jordan (ed.), 2010. "Applied Methods of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Health Care," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199237128.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ali Darvishi & Reza Goudarzi & Viktoria Habib Zadeh & Mohsen Barouni, 2020. "Cost-benefit Analysis of IUI and IVF based on willingness to pay approach; case study: Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Stella Nalukwago Settumba & Marian Shanahan & Willings Botha & Muhammad Zulilhaam Ramli & Georgina Mary Chambers, 2019. "Reliability and Validity of the Contingent Valuation Method for Estimating Willingness to Pay: A Case of In Vitro Fertilisation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 103-110, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    2. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    3. David Christafore & Susane Leguizamon, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Hospital Access in Areas with High Concentrations of Blacks," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 45(1), pages 87-104, Spring.
    4. Hassan, Alhassan Yosri Ibrahim & Cucculelli, Marco & Lamura, Giovanni, 2023. "Caregivers’ willingness to pay for digital support services: Comparative survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    5. Sylvia Brandt & Felipe Vásquez & Michael Hanemann, 2008. "Designing Contingent Valuation Scenarios for Environmental Health: The Case of Childhood Asthma," Working Papers 11-2008, Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Concepción.
    6. Sabina Sanghera & Emma Frew & Janesh Gupta & Joe Kai & Tracy Roberts, 2015. "Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(9), pages 957-965, September.
    7. David Whynes & Emma Frew & Jane Wolstenholme, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay and Demand Curves: A Comparison of Results Obtained Using Different Elicitation Formats," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 369-386, December.
    8. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of ‘reference goods’ in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to ‘construct’ their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332, December.
    9. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    10. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    11. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    12. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    13. Panos Pashardes & Nicoletta Pashourtidou, 2011. "Consumer welfare from publicly supplemented private goods: age and income effects on demand for health care," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 865-885, December.
    14. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    16. Trine Bergmo & Silje Wangberg, 2007. "Patients’ willingness to pay for electronic communication with their general practitioner," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 105-110, June.
    17. Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Catherine Louise Lawrence, 2021. "‘What You See is All There is’: The Importance of Heuristics in Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) in the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 653-664, September.
    18. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    19. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen, 2008. "Preferences for ‘life‐saving’ programmes: Small for all or gambling for the prize?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 709-720, June.
    20. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, 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:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0344-8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.