Expanding midwifery care in the United States: Implications for clinical outcomes and cost.

Abstract

This study compared clinical and financial outcomes for low-risk birthing people between those attended by midwives and those attended by obstetricians during hospital births. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of births from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020 at hospitals participating in a perinatal quality improvement collaborative, Obstetrical Care Outcomes Assessment Program (OB COAP), in the Northwest region of the United States and estimated risk ratios using a multivariate regression approach with a modified Poisson binomial for mode of delivery, labor interventions, and newborn outcomes comparing midwife-led to obstetrician-led care. Using publicly available data on average costs of vaginal and cesarean births, we then extrapolated the cost differences in care between midwives and obstetricians. Births in the midwife group were less likely to be associated with induction (17.6% vs. 20.3% RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.70-0.78), epidural use (58.9% vs. 76.3% RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.77-0.80), and episiotomy (2.2% vs. 3.4% RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.58-0.81). Cesarean birth was also lower in the midwifery group (7.8% vs. 12.3% RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.62-0.73), without a corresponding increase in risk in adverse neonatal outcomes. We estimated that expanding midwifery care to 100% of low-risk births across the United States could save as much as $340 million per year. Midwifery care is associated with a lower risk of cesarean birth and other interventions versus care provided by obstetricians and is therefore likely lower-cost.