Introduction
While the United States spends vast amounts of money on health care, a considerable percentage of expenditures may be regarded as wasteful. According to JAMA’s recent report, approximately 20-25% of healthcare spending in America is wasteful (Frakt, 2019). Thus, the waste of $760 billion is estimated annually, and this sum exceeds the government’s national primary and secondary education and military spending (Frakt, 2019). In turn, the reduction of wasteful spending in the health care system may improve other spheres of citizens’ lives. For instance, they may be invested in education, ecological safety, infrastructure, and health insurance for the underserved and economically disadvantaged population.
Early Elective Induction
In general, there are multiple reasons for the system’s wasteful spending, including administrative costs, high drug prices, costs associated with medical errors and prevention failures, over-treatment, and additional useless services that appear due to the poor coordination of care. In addition, there is a category of services that may be regarded as non-beneficial or even harmful under certain circumstances. One of them is an early elective labor induction which implies intentional delivery before 39 weeks of pregnancy. Health concerns for a child and a mother are sufficient reasons for induction; however, some women have early elective induction based on preference or convenience without medical reasons. In this case, serious health risks, including infection, bleeding after delivery, a newborn’s low heart rate, and uterine rupture, increase.
Conclusion
Health complications lead to additional treatment and costs, respectively. In the case of an early elective induction based on non-medical reasons, this unnecessary intervention generates higher expenditures due to increased length of stay, more frequent admissions, and neonatal intensive care. Elective induction is generally cost-inefficient; for instance, this intervention during the pandemic resulted in $66 million of additional costs even if, in the majority of cases, it was medically justified (Schmidt et al., 2021). At the same time, the reduction of costs of elective induction based on preference in the case of its prohibition may lead to investments in neonatal care and the provision of nursing surveillance for a more extended period after delivery.
References
Frakt, A. (2019). The huge waste in the U.S. health system.The New York Times. Web.
Schmidt, E. M., Hersh, A. R., Packer, C. H., Zhou, C., Skeith, A. E., & Caughey, A. B. (2021). 847 elective induction of labor at 38 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cost-effectiveness analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 224(2), 526-527.