ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2022
Catastrophic Health Expenditures With Pregnancy and Delivery in the United States.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current perspectives and trends in acupuncture for sleep disorders: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Delivery Timing, Out-Of-Pocket Maternity Costs, and Postpartum Care Utilization: An Instrumental Variable Analysis Among Commercially Insured Women.Health services research · 2026Article
- Use and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Antenatal Fetal Surveillance for Patients With Chronic Conditions.O&G open · 2026Article
- Unpacking childbirth expenditures: what are the factors driving extreme costs in Serbia?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Racial and Ethnic Differences in Out-of-Pocket Spending for Maternity Care.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Implementing a Labor and Delivery Cell Salvage Protocol in Patients at Increased Risk of Hemorrhage: A Pilot Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Prescription for Cash? Cash Support to Low-Income Families in Maternal and Pediatric Health Care Settings.The Milbank quarterly · 2024Article
- Health-related quality of life and utility of maternity health states amongst post-partum Australians.PloS one · 2024Article
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
objectiveTo describe prevalence, trends, and risk factors for catastrophic health expenditures in the year of delivery among birth parents (delivering people).
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2008-2016. We identified newborn birth parents and a 2:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-matched control cohort of nonpregnant reproductive-aged individuals, then assessed for catastrophic health expenditures (spending greater than 10% of family income) in the delivery year. We applied survey weights to extrapolate to the noninstitutionalized U.S. population and used the adjusted Wald test for significance testing. We compared risk of catastrophic health expenditures between birth parents and the control cohort and described time trends and risk factors for catastrophic spending with subgroup comparisons.
resultsWe analyzed 4,056 birth parents and 7,996 reproductive-aged females without pregnancy in a given year. Birth parents reported higher rates of unemployment (52.6% vs 46.6%, P<.001), and high rates of gaining (22.4%) and losing (25.6%) Medicaid in the delivery year. Birth parents were at higher risk of catastrophic health expenditures (excluding premiums: 9.2% vs 6.8%, odds ratio [OR] 1.95, 95% CI 1.61-2.34; including premiums: 21.3% vs 18.4%, OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32-1.82). Birth parents living on low incomes had the highest risk of catastrophic health expenditures (18.8% vs 0.7% excluding premiums for 138% or less vs greater than 400% of the federal poverty level, relative risk [RR] 26.9; 29.8% vs 5.9% including premiums, RR 5.1). For birth parents living at low incomes, public insurance was associated with lower risks of catastrophic health expenditures than private insurance, particularly when including premium spending (incomes 138% of the federal poverty level or lower: 18.8% public vs 67.9% private, RR 0.28; incomes 139-250% of the federal poverty level: 6.5% public vs 41.1% private, RR 0.16). The risk of catastrophic spending for birth parents did not change significantly over time from before to after Affordable Care Act implementation.
conclusionPregnancy and delivery are associated with increased risk of catastrophic health expenditures in the delivery year. Medicaid and public coverage were more protective from high out-of-pocket costs than private insurance, particularly among low-income families.
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.