Abstract
Background Public maternity models of care in high income countries are usually multi-professional with non-continuity. Private care usually involves obstetric-led continuity models. The comparative outcomes across these models, is not known. We aimed to compare value across health outcomes and costs of care in public hospital birth/model of care and private hospital birth/ model of care.
Methods We analysed maternal and neonatal outcomes from pregnancy onset to four weeks post-birth in unique whole-of-population linked perinatal data assets, Maternity2000 (covering three states and 78% of Australian births, n= 867,334, 2016 to 2019) for health outcomes and Maternity1000 (one State, 21% births, n= 148,466, 2016 to 2018) for cost and outcome analyses. Tightly matched cohorts were generated, analysed and reinforced with bootstrapping of 50 re-matched datasets and sensitivity analyses.
Results Matching generated 184,146 births per model of care. Higher adverse outcomes in the public compared to the private obstetric model of care, including 786 more stillbirths or neonatal deaths (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.8 – 2.1), 2,251 more neonatal intensive care admissions (OR 2.9, 95% CI: 2.7 – 3.0), 2,780 more APGAR score <7 at 5 minutes (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 2.0 – 2.1), 3,327 more 3rd or 4th degree perineal tears (OR 2.9, 95% CI: 2.7 – 3.1) and 10,530 additional maternal haemorrhages (OR 2.7, 95% CI: 2.6 – 2.8). Obesity and mode of birth correlated with neonatal death. Mean cost in AUD per pregnancy episode was $5,888 higher in public versus private care ($28,645, 95% CI: 28,417 – 28,874 versus $22,757, 95% CI: 22,624 – 22,890), equating to $1.77 billion in extra annual cost to government if all care was provided in the public model of care. Findings persisted across bootstrapping, sensitivity analyses and socioeconomic quintiles.
Conclusions Maternity healthcare has been transformational historically in improving outcomes, yet we have shown significant disparity and inequality in outcomes and costs, challenging universal value-based care, with higher adverse health outcomes and costs in the public compared to the private model of care. To identify and address drivers of observed disparities, actions could include an independent inquiry, further research including timely transparent data use.
Key Messages
More frequent adverse outcomes in the public model of care included stillbirth/ neonatal death; intensive care admission; perineal damage; haemorrhage, versus the private obstetric model of care.
There were higher costs in the public model of care.
There is significant inequality across health outcomes and costs in maternity care, contextualised by differences in continuity, provider, mode of birth and setting.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
EC, BM and HT received salary support and grant funding from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (APP2009326 and APP1159536 respectively).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
For Maternity1000, ethics approval was obtained from the Townsville Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (HREC/16/QTHS/223), James Cook University HREC (H7246) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare HREC (EO2017-1-338). We also obtained Public Health Act Approval (RD007377). The Maternity2000 project received human research ethics approval from the New South Wales Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (HREC/ETH00684/2020.11), and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Ethics Committee (EO2020/4/1167). We also received Public Health Act Approval (PHA 20-00684). No identifiable patient information was provided to the authors.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Our data access approvals specifically prohibit any data sharing, and thus data sharing is not possible.
