ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2014
Return on investment: a fuller assessment of the benefits and cost savings of the US publicly funded family planning program.
Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does family planning use empower women? A systematic review of the evidence.Reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Can personalized digital counseling improve consumer search for modern contraceptive methods?Science advances · 2023Trial
- Latina Immigrants' Experiences Accessing Contraceptive Services Beyond the Postpartum Period and the Role of Community and Pediatric Settings.Qualitative health research · 2026Article
- Unintended pregnancies: a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of family planning investment in Pakistan.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Socio-Economic Determinants of Contraceptive Use among Married Women in the Addis Urban Health and Demographic Surveillance System (Addis-HDSS) in Ethiopia.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2024Article
- Barriers to Interconception Care Delivery in Primary Care: Clinician, Staff, and Patient Perspectives.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Building an implementation framework to address unmet contraceptive care needs in a carceral setting: a systematic review.Health & justice · 2023Article
- Cost-Benefit Analysis of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in Iran.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2022Article
- Strategies for successful designing of immunocontraceptive vaccines and recent updates in vaccine development against sexually transmitted infections - A review.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2022Review
- Assessing the cost-effectiveness of contraceptive methods from a health provider perspective: case study of Kiambu County Hospital, Kenya.Reproductive health · 2022Article
- Maternal Health Services Set Toolkit for Pharmacists.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2021Article
- Acceptability of Contraceptive Services in the Emergency Department: A Cross-sectional Survey.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2021Article
- The Estimated Direct Lifetime Medical Costs of Sexually Transmitted Infections Acquired in the United States in 2018.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2021Article
- Preference for Contraceptive Implant Among Women 18-44 years old.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- Approaches, barriers, and facilitators to abortion-related work in U.S. health departments: perspectives of maternal and child heath and family planning professionals.BMC public health · 2020Article
- 'It is our duty:' Understanding Parents' Perspectives on Reproductive and Sexual Health Education.Sex education · 2020Article
- Estimating the incidence of unintended births and pregnancies at the sub-state level to inform program design.PloS one · 2020Article
- Immediate Postpartum Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Programs in Texas Hospitals Following Changes to Medicaid Reimbursement Policy.Maternal and child health journal · 2019Article
- Access to contraception in local health departments, four Midwest states, 2017-2018.Contraception · 2019Article
- Contraceptive Use Among Women at Risk for Unintended Pregnancy in the Context of Public Health Emergencies - United States, 2016.MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledPolicy Points: The US publicly supported family planning effort serves millions of women and men each year, and this analysis provides new estimates of its positive impact on a wide range of health outcomes and its net savings to the government. The public investment in family planning programs and providers not only helps women and couples avoid unintended pregnancy and abortion, but also helps many thousands avoid cervical cancer, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, infertility, and preterm and low birth weight births. This investment resulted in net government savings of $13.6 billion in 2010, or $7.09 for every public dollar spent. CONTEXT: Each 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.