Abstract
Objective To determine the potential cost savings resulting from the introduction of routine early medical abortion at home by telemedicine in the United Kingdom.
Design A cost-effectiveness analysis Setting: United Kingdom
Population Women in 2020 undergoing early medical abortion provided by three independent abortion providers and two NHS abortion clinics.
Methods Computation of the costs of each abortion procedure and of managing failed or incomplete abortion and haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion.
Outcome measures Cost savings
Results Overall estimated cost savings are £15.80 per abortion undertaken by independent abortion providers representing a saving to the NHS of over £3 million per year. Limited data from NHS services resulted in an estimated average saving of £188.84 per abortion.
Conclusions Were telemedicine EMA to become routine, an increase in the number of women eligible for medical rather than surgical abortion, and a reduction in adverse events resulting from earlier abortion could result in significant cost-savings.
Tweetable Abstract Early medical abortion at home using telemedicine could save the NHS £3 million per year
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding from CHARM Foundation UK
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
None required: Evaluative cost-effectiveness analysis
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding: CHARM Foundation UK
Role of authors and disclosure of interests JH: was responsible for the design and implementation of the economic models and contributed to the drafting, editing and revision of the final manuscript.
AG: Discussed the interpretation of the results, major role in writing the manuscript. No conflict of interest.
SH: Responsible for convening the group. Significantly contributed to the funding application and the writing, editing, revision and approval of the final manuscript
LR: Responsible for initiating the study, obtaining funding from the CHARM Foundation UK, contributing to the interpretation of the results, drafting, editing, revision and approval of the final manuscript. LR is the Chair of the RCOG Abortion Taskforce and CHARM Foundation UK
The guideline referred to in this article and the adapted economic model were produced by the National Guideline Alliance (NGA) at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of NICE. “National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2019) Abortion care. Available from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng140”
Data Availability
Data openly available in a public repository that issues datasets with DOIs. Other data available on request.
https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.16668