Introduction US data reveal a Caesarean rate discrepancy between insured and uninsured patients, with the C-section rate highest among the privately insured. The data have prompted concern that financial incentives associated with insurance status might influence American physicians' decisions to perform Caesarean deliveries.
Objective To determine whether differences in medical risk factors account for the apparent Caesarean rate discrepancy between Medicaid and privately insured patients in Michigan, USA.
Method A retrospective review was performed of 617 269 live birth deliveries in Michigan hospitals during 2004–8. All live birth records that were able to be linked to their mothers' hospital discharge records were utilised. Diagnosis-related group codes from the hospitalisation records were used to identify Caesarean deliveries. Regression models determined Caesarean probability for the time period under study, adjusted for insurance type, maternal age, race, maternal medical conditions, multiple births, prematurity and birth weight.
Results From 2004 to 2008, Caesarean rates were 33% for privately insured patients and 29% for Medicaid patients. The probability of Caesarean delivery was significantly greater for privately insured than Medicaid patients on univariate analysis (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.22) but not on multivariate analysis (adjusted OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02).
Conclusion No significant disparity was found in the odds of Caesarean delivery between privately insured and Medicaid patients in Michigan after adjusting for other Caesarean risk factors. A positive disparity would have provided de facto evidence that financial incentives play a role in physician decision-making regarding Caesarean delivery.
- clinical ethics
- empirical bioethics
- insurance reimbursement
- interests of woman/fetus/father
- obstetrics and gynaecology
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was received from the Institutional Review Board of Michigan Department of Community Health.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Publicly insured caesarean sections in private hospitals: a repeated cross-sectional analysis in Chile
- Pathways to a rising caesarean section rate: a population-based cohort study
- In which groups of pregnant women can the caesarean delivery rate likely be reduced safely in the USA? A multicentre cross-sectional study
- Analysis of variation in charges and prices paid for vaginal and caesarean section births: a cross-sectional study
- Role of public and private funding in the rising caesarean section rate: a cohort study
- ESRA19-0493 PRO
- Relaxation of the one child policy and trends in caesarean section rates and birth outcomes in China between 2012 and 2016: observational study of nearly seven million health facility births
- Variation in caesarean delivery rates
- Target rates for caesarean section may be too low, say researchers
- Breaking the myth: the association between the increasing incidence of labour induction and the rate of caesarean delivery in Finland - a nationwide Medical Birth Register study