Is vaginal birth after cesarean less expensive than repeat cesarean delivery?

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare total medical costs of trial of labor after cesarean with those of elective repeat cesarean without labor, with both short- and long-term neonatal costs associated with such procedures taken into account. STUDY DESIGN: Costs associated with All Patient Refined diagnosis-related groups and Current Procedural Terminology for a large not-for-profit health care system were applied to an algorithm describing maternal and neonatal outcomes of trial of labor. Perinatal morbidity rates and cost estimates for long-term neurologic damage associated with uterine rupture were derived from published literature. RESULTS: If a 70% vaginal birth rate for women undergoing a trial of labor and delivery in a tertiary center with a mean uterine rupture to delivery time of 13 minutes is assumed, the net cost differential ranged from a saving of $149 to a loss of $217, depending on morbidity assumptions. For vaginal birth after cesarean success rates <70%, trial of labor in the presence of two previous scars, and institutional factors increasing the perinatal morbidity rate by just 4% with respect to that seen in tertiary centers, trial of labor resulted in a net financial loss to the health care system regardless of all other assumptions made. CONCLUSIONS: When costs as opposed to charges are considered and the cost of long-term care for neurologically injured infants is taken into account, trial of labor after previous cesarean is unlikely to be associated with a significant cost saving for the health care system. Recent government-mandated length-of-stay requirements are likely to make the economic benefit of vaginal birth after cesarean even less favorable. Factors other than cost must govern decisions regarding trial of labor or repeat cesarean.