4.7 Article

Employer-Sponsored Plan Expenditures for Infants Born Preterm

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 140, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2017-1078

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Care for infants born preterm or with major birth defects is costly. Specific estimates of financial burden for different payers are lacking, in part because use of administrative data to identify preterm infants and costs is challenging. METHODS: We used private health insurance claims data and billing codes to identify live births during 2013 and calculated first-year expenditures for employer-sponsored health plans for infants born preterm, both overall and stratified by major birth defects. RESULTS: We conservatively estimated that 7.7% of insured infants born preterm accounted for 37% of $ 2.0 billion spent by participating plans on the care of infants born during 2013. With a mean difference in plan expenditures of similar to$47 100 per infant, preterm births cost the included plans an extra $600 million during the first year of life. Extrapolating to the national level, we projected aggregate employer-sponsored plan expenditures of $6 billion for infants born preterm during 2013. Infants with major birth defects accounted for 5.8% of preterm births but 24.5% of expenditures during infancy. By using an alternative algorithm to identify preterm infants, it was revealed that incremental expenditures were higher: $78 000 per preterm infant and $14 billion nationally. CONCLUSION Preterm births (especially in conjunction with major birth defects) represent a substantial burden on payers, and efforts to mitigate this burden are needed. In addition, researchers need to conduct studies using linked vital records, birth defects surveillance, and administrative data to accurately and longitudinally assess per-infant costs attributable to preterm birth and the interaction of preterm birth with major birth defects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据