Contraception acclaimed ..

Any contraceptive method, even the most expensive, is better than the absence of contraception, both from an economic point of view for the company from the point of view of quality of life and health, according to a U.S. study published in the journal "Contraception".
The impact of contraception on women's health has not been emphasized so far, so that the medical complications of contraceptive methods are often used as an argument to justify the risk, especially the pill, "say Dr. Frank Sonnenberg of the "Robert Wood Johnson Medical School" in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and colleagues.

The researchers conducted a study "cost-benefit" comparing 13 methods of contraception or non-reversible, including natural methods to lack of use of contraceptive methods, in terms of health costs and years of life quality (QALYs).

Comparative contraceptive methods were the pill, transdermal patch, vaginal ring, condom, diaphragm, copper IUDs or progestin-releasing the monthly injectable progestogen contraceptives and two definitive methods (tubal sterilization and vasectomy the spouse) and two "natural" methods (periodic abstinence and withdrawal).

Compared to the non-use of contraception, any contraceptive method was associated with savings over 2 years, from 5907 dollars saved per woman for tubal sterilization to $ 9,936 for vasectomy.

Similarly, any method was correlated with benefits in terms of health in relation to the absence of contraception.

The analysis further shows that the higher the rate of pregnancy (ie failures) associated with a method, the higher the percentage of total cost represented by the cost associated with pregnancy is high. With the most effective methods is the cost of the method that represents the largest proportion of the total cost per person.

"The methods that require user intervention less than once a day are less costly and more effective," the authors say.

They have also examined the potential impact of increased use of effective contraceptive methods in population beyond the utilization rate observed in the general population.

Depending on the chosen, namely an increase in the use of the contraceptive patch and a decrease in other methods or no contraception for scenario 1, and an increase in the patch and the vaginal ring to the detriment of other methods scenario or absence of contraception, the savings generated are 751 to 780 dollars.

"Our results have important implications for managed care organizations and health insurance plans underwritten by companies to their employees, which examine the question of whether or not to cover contraceptive services," say the authors.

"They suggest that even a short-term horizon (1 or 2 years), cover any method other than sterilization will result in significant savings by avoiding pregnancies and their complications."

"In addition, programs that encourage the use of more effective methods of contraception and compliance are sure to save money", they add. "Even a modest increase in the use of more efficient at the expense of less effective methods methods result in measurable savings."