Return on Investment: A Fuller Assessment of the Benefits and Cost Savings of the US Publicly Funded Family Planning Program

Abstract

ContextEach year the United States’ publicly supported family planning program serves millions of low-income women. Although the health impact and public-sector savings associated with this program's services extend well beyond preventing unintended pregnancy, they never have been fully quantified.MethodsDrawing on an array of survey data and published parameters, we estimated the direct national-level and state-level health benefits that accrued from providing contraceptives, tests for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), Pap tests and tests for human papillomavirus (HPV), and HPV vaccinations at publicly supported family planning settings in 2010. We estimated the public cost savings attributable to these services and compared those with the cost of publicly funded family planning services in 2010 to find the net public-sector savings. We adjusted our estimates of the cost savings for unplanned births to exclude some mistimed births that would remain publicly funded if they had occurred later and to include the medical costs for births through age 5 of the child.FindingsIn 2010, care provided during publicly supported family planning visits averted an estimated 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, including 287,500 closely spaced and 164,190 preterm or low birth weight (LBW) births, 99,100 cases of chlamydia, 16,240 cases of gonorrhea, 410 cases of HIV, and 13,170 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease that would have led to 1,130 ectopic pregnancies and 2,210 cases of infertility. Pap and HPV tests and HPV vaccinations prevented an estimated 3,680 cases of cervical cancer and 2,110 cervical cancer deaths; HPV vaccination also prevented 9,000 cases of abnormal sequelae and precancerous lesions. Services provided at health centers supported by the Title X national family planning program accounted for more than half of these benefits.The gross public savings attributed to these services totaled approximately $15.8 billion—$15.7 billion from preventing unplanned births, $123 million from STI/HIV testing, and $23 million from Pap and HPV testing and vaccines. Subtracting $2.2 billion in program costs from gross savings resulted in net public-sector savings of $13.6 billion.ConclusionsPublic expenditures for the US family planning program not only prevented unintended pregnancies but also reduced the incidence and impact of preterm and LBW births, STIs, infertility, and cervical cancer. This investment saved the government billions of public dollars, equivalent to an estimated taxpayer savings of $7.09 for every public dollar spent.

Educational Inequalities in Repeat Abortion: A Longitudinal Register Study in Finland 1975–2010

“…Few studies have examined whether the increase in repeat abortion has occurred evenly between socioeconomic groups, although such studies would help create interventions aimed at avoiding such procedures. Avoiding unintended pregnancy would reduce public expenditures compared with the cost of repeat abortion (Cleland et al, 2011;Frost et al, 2014).…”

Prevention of Unintended Pregnancy Among Sexually Active Adolescents in the United States

“…Against this backdrop, adolescent contraception is very cost effective. 20,21 Caring for teens requires knowing if they are sexually active and what measures they are taking to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and pregnancy. One retrospective study reported that of the 1,000 visits to primary care clinicians, only 212 documented that a sexual history had been taken.…”

Implications of employer coverage of contraception: Cost‐effectiveness analysis of contraception coverage under an employer mandate

“…[3] Additional studies have found contraception coverage to be cost-effective and even cost-saving from the perspective of public insurers. [10, 11] However, to our knowledge, no studies have developed a formal decision-model of private insurance coverage for contraception in the context of the new ACA provisions. This study aims to estimate the impact on pregnancies, pregnancy outcomes and costs of private, employer-sponsored insurance coverage for contraceptives.…”