Not As Much As You Think: Toward a Truer Estimate of the Difference in Direct Medical Costs between Vaginal and Cesarean Deliveries

Birth

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 208-209

  Malkin, Jesse D ^a  

^a Health Economics and Outcomes Research   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; PREGNANCY; REVIEW;

CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; DIRECT SERVICE COSTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY;

EID: 0035462597     PISSN: 07307659     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-536x.2001.00208.x     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Henderson J, McCandlish R, Kumiega L, Petrou S. Systematic review of economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery. BJOG 2001;108:149-157.
2. Health Insurance Association of America. Source Book of Health Insurance Data. Washington, DC: Health Insurance Association of America, 1999.
3. Finkler SA. The distinction between cost and charges. Ann Intern Med 1982;96:102-109.
4. McCloskey L, Petitti DB, Hobel CJ. Variations in the use of cesarean delivery for dystocia: Lessons about the source of care. Med Care 1992;30:126-135.
5. Bell JS, Campbell DM, Graham WJ, et al. Do obstetric complications explain high caesarean section rates among women over 30? A retrospective analysis. BMJ 2001;322:894-895.
6. Gifford DS, Morton SC, Fiske M, et al. Lack of progress in labor as a reason for cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:589-595.
7. American Medical Association. Physician Socioeconomic Statistics, 2000-2002 Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Center for Health Policy Research, 2001.