For Every Dollar Spent -- The Cost-Savings Argument for Prenatal Care
- 10 November 1994
- journal article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 331 (19) , 1303-1307
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199411103311910
Abstract
Public spending for prenatal care in the United States has been justified in recent years primarily by the cost-savings argument. Prenatal care, it is argued, can prevent the costs and medical complications associated with low birth weight; it is public health spending that pays for itself. This proposition seems intuitively reasonable and supports a popular public policy. Moreover, the findings of the body of research we consider here have given this assertion considerable weight and remarkable precision. Few other claims in medicine or in public health can be encapsulated into the statement that for every $1.00 spent, $1.701 (or $2.57 . . .Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Does Prenatal Care Decrease the Incidence and Cost of Neonatal Intensive Care Admissions?American Journal of Perinatology, 1992
- Effects of Medicaid eligibility expansion on prenatal care and pregnancy outcome in TennesseeJAMA, 1990
- Child Health Policy in the U.s.: The Paradox of ConsensusJournal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 1990
- What Price Prematurity?Family Planning Perspectives, 1989
- The impact of the Mississippi Improved Child Health Project on prenatal care and low birthweight.American Journal of Public Health, 1986
- The perinatal and economic impact of prenatal care in a low-socioeconomic populationAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1986
- Costs averted by providing comprehensive prenatal care to teenagersJournal of Nurse-Midwifery, 1985
- Evaluation of the effects of the North Carolina Improved Pregnancy Outcome Project: implications for state-level decision-making.American Journal of Public Health, 1984
- IS ROUTINE ANTENATAL CARE WORTH WHILE?The Lancet, 1980
- Relation of the Hospital to the Hygiene of PregnancyNew England Journal of Medicine, 1913