NHS C-section plans.

Cathy - posted on 11/02/2011

Marina said the cost for a natural hospital birth v c-section in the US were the same.

The basic cost of a c-section in the UK is from £800 up to £2000 more than a basic hospital birth, that's just for the delivery. You then have to include the cost of a bed up to £400 per day/night, which is obviously going to be higher. A woman with a complication free vaginal delivery can go home within 6 hours of giving birth, that won't happen for a c-section, straight forward or not. And then you have all the hidden costs....

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

Amanda that makes sense really, honestly I can't see how a major surgery cost less, it seems impossible and that is not even the hidden cost like you state. But facts like longer hospital stay, risk of infection and complications from anaesthesia. I am not sure however Cathy said it was stated it cost the same but I just don't see it adding up that way or did I get that wrong Cathy?

Amanda - posted on 11/02/2011

Some research has linked C-section delivery with higher rates of postpartum depression, and this may be due to the discrepancies in oxytocin release. Which in turn cost NHS even more money.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

Susanne I just posted here to take on this debate with you and others. I am going to respond to you post over there so as to not go off topic here.
http://www.circleofmoms.com/debating-mum...

Susanne - posted on 11/02/2011

Im not sure how much money it costs for ivf where your from but in the UK its about the £3000 mark hardly 20 years of saving. Thats less than a new car or a deposit in a house and married couples find money for those easily enough. The reason we never adopted was because my husband was considered too old by our local authority.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

I am suprised you can get elective cosmetic surgery for boobs and have it paid for. Why do so many women go to a plastic surgeon than? Would you not need a medical reason? I am only asking for info. It shocks me really about breast enhancement.
I really don't get what you mean by IVF cost, so a person should wait 20 years save upu for IVF and then maybe have a baby? Is that what you mean?
Also about adoption, Why did you not adopt if you feel so strongly of the matter?
The fact is adoption is a different choice all together not just for infertile people.
Sorry we should take this to another debate ...in fact I am going to post on it now. Hope you join in on it. I wonder how many others feel as you do. It should be a good debate and will keep this one on topic for C-sections.

Susanne - posted on 11/02/2011

Ivf is not that expensive, it costs less than 18 years worth of birthday and christmas gifts, clothes, shoes, school trips, etc. Yes I am fertile and have 4 kids but I also spent a few years before having them coming to terms with the fact that I might not be able to have kids. We spent years trying before it finally happened and i never considered ivf. BY the way yes you can have boob jobs on the nhs in certain parts of the country but its getting rarer now as we are in the middle of a recession.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

I want to add saying "If you are too poor to pay for it then you are too poor to have children" is to me like saying if your too poor to get a breast reduction that is your problem, deal with the pain it is not life or death !
Elective C sections are not anything like IVF.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

Well I am shocked by your response really. In fact having IVF is expensive and more expensive than giving birth and prenatal care. So it is not that people are too poor. Also adoption is costly and not easy. Also not all people want to adopt or should have to adopt that is a choice completely separate than having your own baby.
I can only assume you are fertile and never had trouble conceiving and yes infertility is a medical problem, it is painful and life altering. I am happy it is paid for to treat. btw IVF is just one way to help treat infertility.
I do not want to take away from the subject of c sections which is an ELECTIVE SURGERY,but IVF is not a choice but a treatment for infertility! Also do they really pay for boob jobs in the NHS??? or are you talking about breast reductions, or reconstruction breast surgery for cancer patients?

Susanne - posted on 11/02/2011

What I am saying is that tax payers should not be paying for ivf. If you are too poor to pay for it then you are too poor to have children. My father was adopted but n this day and age he would have been left to languish in a childrens home because his parents would have had ivf and that isnt fair.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

Susanne so you are saying that the NHS should only fund life threatening, painful situations. I did not include life altering because I think not being able to have children is very life altering for many families.

Susanne - posted on 11/02/2011

Yes infertility is a medical problem but it is not life threatening, painful or life altering. To me if someone wants a child that much they should be able to afford to pay for it themselves not expect taxpayers to fund it. Or they could always adopt one of the many children we have in care.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

Susanne I agree elective surgeries like boob jobs and elective c sections are a bit much to ask from the tax payers in a system like the NHS that is already having money problems but why do you put IVF in the loop?

Infertility is a medical problem.

Susanne - posted on 11/02/2011

I think this is ridiculous and shouldnt be allowed we already have the nhs funding boob jobs and ivf then we have people being refused life saving cancer drugs because the nhs cant afford it. Bloody stupid.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

Cathy In the USA and in Canada you can request an elective C-section. In Canada if you get an OBGYN to agree it will be covered, in the USA if you get an OBGYN to agree it most likely will be covered via insurance, but not all OBGYN''s will do it. Many Moms shop for one who will if they are very persistent they can get it. The only thing in the USA is it depends on your insurance coverage as to if it is covered. In fact some policies do not even cover pregnancy and delivery.
Sherry not all insurance in the USA is private, don't forget about Medicaid. That is supported via tax payers.

Some interesting stats

The number of American first-time moms who have chosen to deliver by cesarean — with no medical need to do so — rose by 67 percent between 1991 and 2001, according to a 2005 study in the British Medical Journal.

and....

2003 when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a statement essentially approving elective c-sections. In a bow to patient autonomy, the ACOG took the position that doctors may ethically perform an elective cesarean that's medically unnecessary as long as they feel it's "in the best interest of the patient."

That position sparked heated opposition from a number of women's healthcare organizations, including Lamaze International, the American College of Nurse-Midwives, and the International Cesarean Network. Those groups argue that birth is a natural physiological process that should be allowed to unfold naturally unless there's a strong medical reason for surgical intervention.

Cathy - posted on 11/02/2011

The US already have freedom to choose c-sections, do they not?

Erin - posted on 11/01/2011

Sherri, this proposal is happening in the UK's NHS. They have universal healthcare.

Sherri - posted on 11/01/2011

Why would this come at the expense of any taxpayer Ali?? Since this would be paid by insurance at least in the US and in the US the taxpayer doesn't pay your insurance.

Ooo - posted on 11/01/2011

I support freedom of choice, but not when it comes at the expese of the taxpayer.

Laura Zoey - posted on 11/01/2011

Eh idk I think that's it's nuts to imagine a dr saying, now do you want a c section or vaginal birth? But hey it's really not something I'd get all riled up over.
Honestly after feeling labor naturally I'm curious how a c section would differ. I've heard horror stories from both vaginal and c section births.
But in the end my preference will always be in the normal way of things but since I can't force others to do things my way I won't even try,
There's risks both ways, and statistically it's safer to birth vaginally, if women want to take that risk and choose sections that's their choice I guess.
I wouldn't vote for this to pass but I'm not 'against' it per say. I think it's dumb but it's not something to change legally, it has to be changed by teaching women about how birth can be and is supposed to be and empowering them to at least try to do it the way their baby and body are designed to do it.

Tracey - posted on 11/01/2011

It's a medical procedure that should be used when medically necessary.

Cathy - posted on 11/01/2011

Finding prices for private....

The cost of a private birth
Private maternity care is quite expensive. For example, a first birth at the Portland Hospital in London costs £2,880 for a normal delivery and £3,790 for an elective caesarean for the first 24 hours of care, including the delivery. Additional nights in a standard room cost around £1000. You also have to allow for the fees charged by your private consultant obstetrician, which might be £3,000 to £4,000. So, in total, a private birth at a hospital such as the Portland could cost £7,500 to £10,000.

If you pay for private health insurance then you won't have to pay much of those costs out of pocket.

The NHS is running at a deficit already. I don't imagine there would be a huge sway toward elective c-sections because of midwifery led care being the norm. But even a small change could result in thousand of pounds being denied in other departments. I wonder if women were asked to pay the excess, on an elective c-section compared with a standard hospital birth, they would be so eager to go down that route?

Angela - posted on 11/01/2011

I agree with Cathy on all she stated so I won't repeat her words.

I want to add over here in The Netherlands it would fill up hospital beds that are needed and at times in shortage...so if they go private fine but I feel it would take from resources that are needed.

Unless it could be shown to me it cost not any more money and would not take needed resources from woman and babies who need them, I am only for it private.

Wendy - posted on 10/31/2011

why in the hell would a woman choose to have major abdominal surgery (thats what it is) over a natural birth??? thats just excuse my french fu#$$^ng nuts...in my opinion you cant give me a good enough reason.....medicaly recomended only again in my opinion i have had 2 c sections...would have loved to do it naturaly

Lady Heather - posted on 10/31/2011

If women want to choose that I suppose they can go ahead, but I don't want my tax dollars paying for it.

My c-section was awesome though. If I could have this exact scenario, I would probably choose it. I feel bad saying that, but my natural recovery sucked balls.

Sarah - posted on 10/31/2011

There are already too many sections being carried out. I don't think it should be an option because you're 'too posh to push' or don't fancy going through childbirth.

Erin - posted on 10/31/2011

Totally agree with Cathy.

It's a matter of resources in a public health system. I have no issue with an informed woman electing to have a non-medically indicated c/s. But she should be going private (I assume you have the option to go private in the UK?).

Amanda - posted on 10/31/2011

I don't agree that c sections should be made avaliable as an option to natural childbirth. If there is a medical reason or risk to mum or baby then obviously get the baby out as quick as possible.
I have had normal deliveries. With my daughter they wanted to take me in and delivery her by c section because her heart rate had dropped dangerously low and they were having trouble stabilising it. Lucky for me I labour quickly and it was quicker for me to push her out then to prep me for surgery.

I do think that some women will opt for a c section to avoid all the pain of childbirth.

Cathy - posted on 10/31/2011

I think that would be down to the way your insurance work in the US, Marina.



2007 figures, an regular NHS hospital birth will cost £1,351, while a caesarean section costs £2,339. This is non profit.



*Edit to include more recent figures*



The following are suggested NHS maternity care charges, excluding the cost of scans and drugs (including HIV/AIDS drugs), which are charged for seperately.

Normal delivery without complications - £1174

Caesarian section with complications - £3626

In-patient bed payment - £346-£420 per day

Booking appointment - £145

Follow on appointment - £65-£78

(Department of Health, 2010)

Sherri - posted on 10/31/2011

I do not agree with C-Sections as a choice. I think the only reason they should be allowed is if their is an actual medical reason.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/31/2011

Cathy, in both the states that I have delivered in (USA) there was no difference in cost from delivering via c section or natural.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/31/2011

Lovely. As much as I am for womens rights, I don't think this should be an option made so readily available. Why should it? I have had both c section and natural birth. The c section was so difficult to heal from, and I had my issues with natural also....but 5 years later I STILL have sensitivity at the incision site.

Cathy - posted on 10/31/2011

I fully support freedom of choice in how they give birth. I don't think it is something that should be pushed or even recommended to a woman with no medical reasoning. If they request and are properly informed of all risk and complications then that is informed choice and I respect that right.

Problems I foresee ...
1) Postcode lotteries for an elective caesarian. Not every health authority in the country is going to have the budget to provide them.
2) By electing to have a caesarian with no medical necessity you could be denying specialist and an OR to a woman in an emergency situation.