Group Prenatal Care: A Financial Perspective

• Published in: Maternal and child health journal 2016-01, Vol.20 (1), p.1-10
• Main Authors: Rowley, Rebecca A., Phillips, Lindsay E., O’Dell, Lisa, Husseini, Racha El, Carpino, Sarah, Hartman, Scott
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Ambulatory Care Facilities - economics; Analysis; Birth weight; Breast feeding; Breastfeeding & lactation; Childrens health; Clinical trials; Commerce - economics; Commerce - methods; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Costs; Female; Group Practice - economics; Group Practice - standards; Gynecology; Humans; Income; Infant, Newborn; Maternal and Child Health; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Notes from the Field; Obstetrics - economics; Outpatient care facilities; Patient satisfaction; Pediatrics; Population Economics; Pregnancy; Premature birth; Prenatal care; Prenatal Care - economics; Public Health; Sociology; Womens health
• ISSN: 1092-7875; 1573-6628
• DOI: 10.1007/s10995-015-1802-2

Introduction Multiple studies have demonstrated improved perinatal outcomes for group prenatal care (GPC) when compared to traditional prenatal care. Benefits of GPC include lower rates of prematurity and low birth weight, fewer cesarean deliveries, improved breastfeeding outcomes and improved maternal satisfaction with care. However, the outpatient financial costs of running a GPC program are not well established. Methods This study involved the creation of a financial model that forecasted costs and revenues for prenatal care groups with various numbers of participants based on numerous variables, including patient population, payor mix, patient show rates, staffing mix, supply usage and overhead costs. The model was developed for use in an urban underserved practice. Results Adjusted revenue per pregnancy in this model was found to be $989.93 for traditional care and $1080.69 for GPC. Cost neutrality for GPC was achieved when each group enrolled an average of 10.652 women with an enriched staffing model or 4.801 women when groups were staffed by a single nurse and single clinician. Conclusions Mathematical cost-benefit modeling in an urban underserved practice demonstrated that GPC can be not only financially sustainable but possibly a net income generator for the outpatient clinic. Use of this model could offer maternity care practices an important tool for demonstrating the financial practicality of GPC.