Cost Analysis of Surgical and Medical Uterine Evacuation Methods for First-Trimester Abortion Used in Public Hospitals in Mexico.

Background: Data on abortion procedures costs are scarce in low- and middle-income countries. In Mexico, the only known study was conducted more than a decade ago, with data from years before the abortion legislation. This study estimated the costs, from the health system's perspective, of surgical and medical abortion methods commonly used by women who undergo first-trimester abortion in Mexico. Methods: Data were collected on staff time, salaries, medications, consumables, equipment, imaging, and lab studies, at 5 public general hospitals. A bottom-up micro-costing approach was used. Results: Surgical abortion costs were US$201 for manual vacuum aspiration and US$298 for sharp curettage. The cost of medical abortion with misoprostol was US$85. The use of cervical ripening increases the costs by up to 18%. Staff comprised up to 72% of total costs in surgical abortions. Hospitalization was the area where most of the spending occurred, due to the staff and post-surgical surveillance required. Conclusions: Our estimates reflect the costs of "real-life" implementation and highlight the impact on costs of the overuse of resources not routinely recommended by clinical guidelines, such as cervical ripening for surgical abortion. This information will help decision-makers to generate policies that contribute to more efficient use of resources.

Factors affecting the persistent use of sharp curettage for abortion in public hospitals in Mexico.

OBJECTIVES: Dilation and curettage is an outdated abortion procedure no longer recommended by the World Health Organization. However, use of dilation and curettage remains high in some countries, including Mexico. We aim to understand the factors that contribute to persistent use of dilation and curettage in Mexico. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in two phases: (1) secondary quantitative data analysis from 40 Ipas-supported public hospitals in Mexico and (2) 28 in-depth interviews in 9 Ipas-affiliated hospitals with doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators. RESULTS: Among our sample, 41% of abortions less than 13 weeks performed in 2019 were treated with dilation and curettage, while this increased to 67% of abortions at or above 13 weeks. Only 18% of induced abortions were performed with dilation and curettage compared to 44% of post-abortion care procedures. The main factor identified as determining use of dilation and curettage in in-depth interviews was availability of abortion supplies, both in terms of cleaning, storage, and maintenance of supplies and in the budgeting and procurement of supplies. Other factors included confidence in the efficacy of other methods, attitudes toward different methods, skill and training, and perceived benefits to patients. CONCLUSION: Ensuring supplies for recommended abortion methods are available is a key lever for any intervention aimed at reducing dilation and curettage use. However, as the doctor performing the abortion decides which method to use, individual factors such as lack of skill and mistrust in other procedures can become a particularly obstinate barrier to recommended method use. Localizing decision-making power in the hands of doctors is problematic in that it places the doctor's preference above that of the person receiving the abortion. It is important to look deeply at the power structures that contribute to doctor-oriented models of abortion care.