Journal ArticleDOI
Proportional payment for pelvic inflammatory disease: who should pay for chlamydial screening?
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
The authors retrospectively analyzed charges for 630 women with acute PID presenting to a county hospital over a 2-year period and showed that it would be cost-effective for the county and the state jointly to fund a screening program using a direct antigen test costing under $7 per test.Abstract:
The occurrence of acute pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) caused by Chlamydia trachomatis could be reduced if chlamydial screening were more widely instituted, but financial support for such programs remains limited. Logically, the agencies that could most cost-effectively fund screening programs are those that benefit most from reduction in costs incurred by PID. Therefore, the authors retrospectively analyzed charges for 630 women with acute PID presenting to a county hospital over a 2-year period. Sixteen per cent of patients required hospitalization. Of the total charges, 54% were not paid by any agency, 18% were paid by the county, and 22% by the state. A computer model was developed for analysis of screening programs in high-risk women (prevalence, 17%). The savings in charges for acute cases of PID alone did not make it cost-effective for any single agency to fund chlamydial screening. However, the model showed that it would be cost-effective for the county and the state jointly to fund a screening program using a direct antigen test costing under $7 per test.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Cost of and payment source for pelvic inflammatory disease. Trends and projections, 1983 through 2000.
A E Washington,Patricia P. Katz +1 more
TL;DR: Overall, private insurance covered the largest portion of the direct costs of PID (41%), followed by public payment sources (30%).
Journal ArticleDOI
Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling
TL;DR: Most studies found chlamydia screening to be cost effective, partner notification to be an effective adjunct, and testing with nucleic acid amplification tests, and treatment with azithromycin to becost effective.
Journal ArticleDOI
Screening for chlamydial infection. A model program based on prevalence.
TL;DR: The availability of resources, such as the number of tests available to a screening program, can be accommodated by appropriate adjustment of thresholds for laboratory testing, and a prevalence‐based chlamydial screening program may provide a pragmatic strategy for areas with limited resources.
Journal ArticleDOI
Describing the progression from Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae to pelvic inflammatory disease: systematic review of mathematical modeling studies.
TL;DR: The reporting of key items in mathematical modeling studies about PID could be improved and the potential timings of progression to PID can be investigated further to advance understanding about how chlamydia screening interventions work to prevent PID.
Journal ArticleDOI
Cost-effectiveness of prenatal testing for Chlamydia trachomatis.
Mary D. Nettleman,Thomas A. Bell +1 more
TL;DR: Screening all pregnant women for chlamydia is not cost-effective, but the excess cost is modest when direct antigen tests are used.
Related Papers (5)
Is the Routine Pelvic Examination Needed With the Advent of Urine-Based Screening for Sexually Transmitted Diseases?
A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Screening and Treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis Infection in Asymptomatic Women
Mehmet Genç,Per-Anders Mårdh +1 more