4.6 Article

Cost Analysis of Operating a Human Milk Bank in China

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN LACTATION
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 264-272

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0890334419894551

Keywords

breastfeeding; cost-benefit analysis; human milk; milk bank

Funding

  1. Shanghai Science and Technology Commission 2018 Shanghai Excellent Academic Technology Leadership Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Establishing a human milk bank for the benefit of premature newborns who are unable to receive their mothers' milk for various reasons is a common initiative. To date, 19 human milk banks have been established in China; however, data associated with human milk banks are lacking, including information on the operational costs, guidelines, and regulatory systems for human milk banks in China. Research Aim: Our study aim was to conduct a cost analysis for the human milk bank at Shanghai Children's Hospital. Methods: A management accounting approach, based on the activity-based costing method, was used to develop a cost model for donor human milk. The data were collected retrospectively and included budget plans, financial and expenditure reports, databases, and interviews with the staff and managers at the Shanghai Children's Hospital Human Milk Bank in 2017. Results: In 2017, the total volume of qualified donor human milk was 933.70 L, of which 842.71 L (90%) was frozen and 90.99 L (10%) was freshly donated on site. The total annual cost to provide milk for 212 high-risk infants in 2017 was US$156,923, and the unit cost was US$168/L. Conclusions: The operating costs of human milk banks in China are similar to those in other countries internationally, but these costs are so large that they require government and society support for funding and milk donation. Therefore, ongoing breastfeeding support for mothers and measures to reduce the operating costs of human milk banks should be advocated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available