META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benefits to: | ||||||
Taxpayers | $748 | Benefits minus costs | $10,932 | |||
Participants | $1,210 | Benefit to cost ratio | $16.77 | |||
Others | $0 | Chance the program will produce | ||||
Indirect | $9,668 | benefits greater than the costs | 100 % | |||
Total benefits | $11,625 | |||||
Net program cost | ($693) | |||||
Benefits minus cost | $10,932 | |||||
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant | |||||
Benefits from changes to:1 | Benefits to: | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Taxpayers | Participants | Others2 | Indirect3 | Total |
|
Health care associated with Cesarean sections | $29 | $0 | $0 | $15 | $44 |
Health care associated with small for gestational age births | ($2) | $0 | $0 | ($1) | ($3) |
Subtotals | $27 | $0 | $0 | $14 | $41 |
From secondary participant | |||||
Health care associated with small for gestational age births | ($40) | $0 | $0 | ($20) | ($60) |
Infant mortality | $549 | $1,210 | $0 | $9,914 | $11,673 |
Health care associated with very low birthweight births | $212 | $0 | $0 | $107 | $318 |
Subtotals | $721 | $1,210 | $0 | $10,001 | $11,931 |
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program | $0 | $0 | $0 | ($347) | ($347) |
Totals | $748 | $1,210 | $0 | $9,668 | $11,625 |
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant | ||||
Annual cost | Year dollars | Summary | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Program costs | $692 | 2016 | Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars) | ($693) |
Comparison costs | $0 | 2016 | Cost range (+ or -) | 15 % |
Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars) |
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment. |
Meta-Analysis of Program Effects | |||||||||||
Outcomes measured | Primary or secondary participant | No. of effect sizes | Treatment N | Adjusted effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis | Unadjusted effect size (random effects model) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First time ES is estimated | Second time ES is estimated | ||||||||||
ES | SE | Age | ES | SE | Age | ES | p-value | ||||
Adequate prenatal care (Kotelchuck Index)^ | Primary | 3 | 19008 | 0.118 | 0.105 | 25 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 26 | 0.118 | 0.261 |
Cesarean sections | Primary | 1 | 1033 | -0.030 | 0.180 | 25 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 26 | -0.084 | 0.167 |
Low birthweight births (< 2500g)*** | Primary | 8 | 17785 | -0.058 | 0.026 | 25 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 26 | -0.060 | 0.108 |
Preterm birth (< 37 weeks)*** | Primary | 7 | 17670 | -0.065 | 0.043 | 25 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 26 | -0.068 | 0.087 |
Small for gestational age (SGA)*** | Primary | 2 | 1128 | 0.087 | 0.126 | 25 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 26 | 0.066 | 0.372 |
Very low birthweight birth (< 1500g)*** | Primary | 3 | 16139 | -0.094 | 0.073 | 25 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 26 | -0.094 | 0.198 |
Infant mortality | Secondary | 2 | 63440 | -0.195 | 0.045 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 2 | -0.195 | 0.001 |
Low birthweight births (< 2500g)*** | Secondary | 8 | 17785 | -0.058 | 0.026 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 2 | -0.060 | 0.108 |
NICU admission | Secondary | 1 | 1033 | -0.007 | 0.285 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 2 | -0.018 | 0.825 |
Preterm birth (< 37 weeks)*** | Secondary | 7 | 17670 | -0.065 | 0.043 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 2 | -0.068 | 0.087 |
Small for gestational age (SGA)*** | Secondary | 2 | 1128 | 0.087 | 0.126 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.066 | 0.372 |
Very low birthweight birth (< 1500g)*** | Secondary | 3 | 16139 | -0.094 | 0.073 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 2 | -0.094 | 0.198 |
Jewell, N.A., & Russell, K.M. (2000). Increasing access to prenatal care: an evaluation of Minority Health Coalitions' Early Pregnancy Project. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 17(2), 93-105.
Kothari, C.L., Zielinski, R., James, A., Charoth, R.M., & Sweezy, L.C. (2014). Improved birth weight for Black infants: outcomes of a Healthy Start program. American Journal of Public Health, 104(96).
Meghea, C.I., Raffo, J.E., Zhu, Q., & Roman, L. (2013). Medicaid home visitation and maternal and infant healthcare utilization. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(4), 441-7.
Meghea, C.I., You, Z., Raffo, J., Leach, R.E., & Roman, L.A. (2015). Statewide Medicaid Enhanced Prenatal Care Programs and infant mortality. Pediatrics, 136(2), 334-42.
Redding, S., Conrey, E., Porter, K., Paulson, J., Hughes, K., & Redding, M. (2015). Pathways community care coordination in low birth weight prevention. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19(3), 643-50.
Roman, L., Raffo, J.E., Zhu, Q., & Meghea, C.I. (2014). A statewide Medicaid enhanced prenatal care program: impact on birth outcomes. Jama Pediatrics, 168(3), 220-7.
Stabile, I., & Graham, M. (2000). Florida Panhandle Healthy Start: A randomized trial of prenatal home visitation. Head Start National Research Conference.
Villar, J., Farnot, U., Barros, F., Victora, C., Langer, A., & Belizan, J.M. (1992). A randomized trial of psychosocial support during high-risk pregnancies. The Latin American Network for Perinatal and Reproductive Research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 327(18), 1266-71.