The study found the hysteroscopic method is less expensive due to the following factors:
Quicker recovery — this method requires either no time in recovery or much less time in the hospital recovery room and/or the outpatient floor than laparoscopic tubal ligation, which also means less need for nursing care or ongoing pain control.
Less expensive pharmacy charges — this method requires fewer drugs to administer.
The study was conducted retrospectively via a comparative cost analysis of the aforementioned two methods of female sterilization performed on women ages 27 to 45 who requested permanent sterilization at Mayo Clinic from January to December 2003. The analysis included 43 cases of hysteroscopic sterilization and 44 cases of laparoscopic tubal ligation. The investigators reviewed billing records using cost algorithms on data from Mayo Clinic’s Cost Data Warehouse. The average cost for the hysteroscopic sterilization was $2,314, versus $2,859 for the tubal ligation.
Dr. Famuyide expects that patients will be able to further increase their savings by choosing hysteroscopic sterilization in the future, as the procedure moves out of the hospital setting to the physician’s office.
Text from this article comes from a press release by Mayo Clinic.
or does this read like an ad?
I know it’s a press release. But most of the press releases we post here aren’t describing something that’s for sale…
But every press release is a sales pitch. Unless it’s a release of bad news. The whole point behind telling anyone of your successes is to be able to maintain your progress. In the case of the Mayo clinic it’s to let women know of the options … and hopefully more patients for it will result. Their a commercial enterprise, so they’re hoping for more revenue. When NASA or LANL makes a press release, they’re usually bargaining a different game … justifying continuance (or increase) of their public funds. But they’re still selling themselves.
…was intentional in the title as a double entendre. I too think it reads exactly like an ad, which is why I linked to the stock photos of the smiling women just like the ones you see in all of the televised drug ads lately. In this case, the ad aspect of the press release is actually part of the story IMHO. Altho that’s a very subtle point that only the very smartest SciScoop readers would detect…like you!
If there’s less drs/nurses/drugs, as well as time in recovery, I would think the savings would be more than $500. And what are the side effects that are mentioned almost ‘in passing’, but not explained?
As far as it being like an ad, uh so what? Isn’t the goal of most science/medical research to make money?
If the side effects are very low, including long-term, I’d probably consider this before the traditional laproscopic way.
when a woman with the plugs changes her mind… I didn’t see in the links any reference to reversing the procedure, which can be done successfully sometimes with tubal ligation.
Of course, my curiosity is purely academic. After having a baby at age almost 41, I am stunned over 2 women in the news recently: One just gave birth at age 57– on purpose; the other is about to give birth– the surprise method– at age 59. YIKES. Children as infants are delightful to rock and cuddle. When they’re 10 years old and on the soccer field, mom has to be careful how she pushes her walker to get to the bleachers.