Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency Medicaid is a restricted benefits program for individuals who have low-income status and who are immigrants. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 strategies of pregnancy coverage for Emergency Medicaid recipients: the federal minimum of covering the delivery only vs extended coverage to 60 days after delivery. STUDY DESIGN: A decision analytical Markov model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of these policies, and the results in a theoretical cohort of 100,000 postpartum Emergency Medicaid recipients were considered. The payor perspective was adopted. Health outcomes and cost-effectiveness over a 1- and 3-year time horizon were investigated. All probabilities, utilities, and costs were obtained from the literature. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the competing strategies. RESULTS: Extending Emergency Medicaid to 60 days after delivery was determined to be a cost-saving strategy. Providing postpartum and contraceptive care resulted in 33,900 additional people receiving effective contraception in the first year and prevented 7290 additional unintended pregnancies. Over 1 year, it resulted in a gain of 1566 quality-adjusted life year at a cost of $10,903 per quality-adjusted life year. By 3 years of policy change, greater improvements were observed in all outcomes, and the expansion of Emergency Medicaid became cost saving and the dominant strategy. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of postpartum care and contraception for immigrant women who have low-income status resulted in lower costs and improved health outcomes.