Evaluating the Budget Impact of an Intrauterine Device for Postpartum Hemorrhage Management: A Hospital Perspective
Author(s)
Candice Yong, PhD1, Brian Seal, MBA, RPh, PhD1, Brian Meissner, PhD1, Leon Dupclay, PhD1, Aimee Fox, PhD2, Edward Oliver, BSc2, Shahd Daher, PhD2, Kara Rood, MD3.
1Organon & Co., New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2Adelphi Values, Bollington, United Kingdom, 3The Ohio State University-Wexner Medical Center, Ohio, OH, USA.
1Organon & Co., New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2Adelphi Values, Bollington, United Kingdom, 3The Ohio State University-Wexner Medical Center, Ohio, OH, USA.
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality globally, with clinical and economic consequences. An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control (VIHC) device has been developed to control abnormal post-partum uterine bleeding or hemorrhage when conservative management is warranted. Implementation of the intrauterine device in the PPH treatment pathway may reduce the need for invasive treatments. This study evaluates the budget impact of introducing the intrauterine VIHC device as a treatment for PPH compared to balloon tamponade.
METHODS: A budget impact model was developed from the hospital perspective, assuming all treatment effects incurred within the year of treatment. The model incorporated treatment efficacy, resource utilization, and associated costs. To capture the benefit of using the intrauterine VIHC device earlier in PPH treatment, based on blood loss volume, resource use inputs for the percentage of patients admitted to intensive care and requiring blood transfusions were stratified across four blood loss categories: <999 mL, 1000-1999 mL, 2000-2999 mL, and >3000 mL.
RESULTS: For every 10,000 births, the model projected that 1,474 patients would be treated with the intrauterine VIHC device, resulting in cost-savings of $1,146 per patient compared to balloon tamponade. Despite the higher direct treatment costs of the intrauterine VIHC device, this was offset by savings in hospital room and board ($471,012), intensive care admissions ($730,549), and subsequent procedure costs ($323,581). Patients in lower blood loss categories, generated lower costs related to blood transfusions, intensive care admissions, and subsequent procedures compared to those in higher blood loss categories.
CONCLUSIONS: The budget impact model shows that implementing an intrauterine VIHC device for PPH management can reduce costs and improve resource use from the hospital perspective. Stratified inputs for intensive care and blood transfusions further support its benefit across severity levels, offering significant clinical and economic advantages for hospitals.
METHODS: A budget impact model was developed from the hospital perspective, assuming all treatment effects incurred within the year of treatment. The model incorporated treatment efficacy, resource utilization, and associated costs. To capture the benefit of using the intrauterine VIHC device earlier in PPH treatment, based on blood loss volume, resource use inputs for the percentage of patients admitted to intensive care and requiring blood transfusions were stratified across four blood loss categories: <999 mL, 1000-1999 mL, 2000-2999 mL, and >3000 mL.
RESULTS: For every 10,000 births, the model projected that 1,474 patients would be treated with the intrauterine VIHC device, resulting in cost-savings of $1,146 per patient compared to balloon tamponade. Despite the higher direct treatment costs of the intrauterine VIHC device, this was offset by savings in hospital room and board ($471,012), intensive care admissions ($730,549), and subsequent procedure costs ($323,581). Patients in lower blood loss categories, generated lower costs related to blood transfusions, intensive care admissions, and subsequent procedures compared to those in higher blood loss categories.
CONCLUSIONS: The budget impact model shows that implementing an intrauterine VIHC device for PPH management can reduce costs and improve resource use from the hospital perspective. Stratified inputs for intensive care and blood transfusions further support its benefit across severity levels, offering significant clinical and economic advantages for hospitals.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
EE344
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Budget Impact Analysis
Disease
SDC: Reproductive & Sexual Health