Who can afford a Mirena® for contraception?
Catriona Murray 1 , Christine Roke 11 New Zealand Family Planning, PO Box 11515, Wellington 6142, New Zealand
Correspondence to: Catriona Murray, New Zealand Family Planning, Margaret Sparrow Clinic, PO Box 24 164, Wellington 6011, New Zealand. Email: catriona.murray@familyplanning.org.nz
Journal of Primary Health Care 10(3) 201-206 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC18024
Published: 28 August 2018
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2018.
This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Mirena®, a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), is an effective form of contraception that lasts for 5 years. In New Zealand, it is not subsidised for contraception and the device costs NZ$340 at Family Planning clinics.
AIM: To determine if there is a difference in the socioeconomic status and ethnicity of women who chose an LNG-IUS for contraception compared with women opting for a subsidised long-acting contraceptive (copper intrauterine device (IUD) or Jadelle® implant) or who qualified for a Special Authority Mirena® (funded by Pharmac, as treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding).
METHODS: All the Mirena®, Jaydess®, IUD and Jadelle® insertions that occurred at Family Planning clinics in 2015 in the Wellington region were identified. The deprivation quintile of current address and ethnicity were determined.
RESULTS: In the study period, 1410 devices were inserted. Of the self-funded LNG-IUSs inserted, 5% were for women with quintile 5 addresses (areas with the most deprived New Zealand Deprivation (NZDep) scores) and 28% for quintile 1 areas (least deprived NZDep scores). Of the Special Authority Mirenas® inserted, 24% were for women residing in quintile 5 areas and 19%, quintile 1 areas. Self-funded LNG-IUS were chosen by 2.5% of Māori women choosing contraception at study Family Planning clinics and no Pacific Peoples, whereas 21% of New Zealand European women chose LNG-IUS. Special Authority Mirenas® were chosen by 9.5% Māori and 9.6% Pacific Peoples compared to 4% New Zealand Europeans.
DISCUSSION: Māori, Pacific Peoples and women residing in quintile 5 areas chose self-funded LNG-IUSs less often than Special Authority Mirenas®. This was not the case for the other groups, who showed higher use of self-funded LNG-IUSs than Special Authority Mirenas®.
KEYWORDS: Long-acting reversible contraception; levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraception; funding; deprivation index; health inequity
References
[1] Winner B, Peipert J, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366 1998–2007.| Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] Committee on Gynecologic Practice Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group Committee Opinion No. 642: Increasing access to contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 126 e44–8.
| Committee Opinion No. 642: Increasing access to contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Family Planning New Zealand. Contraception Your Choice. Wellington: Family Planning New Zealand; 2015. [cited 2018 June 8]. Available from: http://www.familyplanning.org.nz/media/302850/fp_cyc-chart.pdf
[4] McNicholas C, Madden T, Secura G, Peipert JF. The Contraceptive CHOICE Project Round Up. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 57 635–43.
| The Contraceptive CHOICE Project Round Up.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Bateson D, Kang S, Paterson H, Singh K. A review of intrauterine contraception in the Asia-Pacific region. Contraception. 2017; 95 40–9.
| A review of intrauterine contraception in the Asia-Pacific region.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Rose SB, Garrett SM. Regional variation in post-abortion initiation of long-acting reversible contraception in New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016; 56 315–22.
| Regional variation in post-abortion initiation of long-acting reversible contraception in New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Rose SB, Lawton BA, Brown SA. Uptake and adherence to long-acting reversible contraception post-abortion. Contraception. 2010; 82 345–53.
| Uptake and adherence to long-acting reversible contraception post-abortion.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Atkinson J, Salmond C, Crampton P. NZDep2013 index of deprivation. Wellington: Department of Public Health, University of Otago; 2014.
[9] Buhling K, Zite NB, Lotke P, Black K. Worldwide use of intrauterine contraception: a review. Contraception. 2014; 89 162–73.
| Worldwide use of intrauterine contraception: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Information Services Division. Long acting reversible methods of contraception in Scotland. National Services Scotland, Information Services Division; 2016. [cited 2018 June 8]. Available from: http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Sexual-Health/Publications/2016-09-20/2016-09-20-LARC-Report.pdf
[11] Foster DG, Biggs MA, Malvin J, et al. Cost-savings from the provision of specific contraceptive methods in 2009. Women’s Health Issues. 2013; 23 e265–71.
| Cost-savings from the provision of specific contraceptive methods in 2009.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Trussell J, Lalla A, Doan Q, et al. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception. 2009; 79 5–14.
| Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Trussell J, Hassan F, Lowin J, et al. Achieving cost-neutrality with long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Contraception. 2015; 91 49–56.
| Achieving cost-neutrality with long-acting reversible contraceptive methods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Trussell J, Henry N, Hassan F, et al. Burden of unintended pregnancy in the United States: potential savings with increased use of long-acting reversible contraception. Contraception. 2013; 87 154–61.
| Burden of unintended pregnancy in the United States: potential savings with increased use of long-acting reversible contraception.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Frost JJ, Sonfield A, Zolna MR, Finer LB. Return on investment: a fuller assessment of the benefits and cost savings of the US Publicly Funded Family Planning Program. Milbank Q. 2014; 92 696–749.
| Return on investment: a fuller assessment of the benefits and cost savings of the US Publicly Funded Family Planning Program.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Mavranezouli I, LARC Guideline Development Group The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23 1338–45.
| The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Family Planning New Zealand. Family Planning Strategic Framework 2016–2020. Wellington: Family Planning New Zealand; 2016. [cited 2018 June 8]. Available from: http://www.familyplanning.org.nz/media/302944/familyplanning_strategic-framework_2016-2020.pdf
[18] Ministry of Health. New Zealand Health Strategy: future direction. City: Publisher; 2016. [cited 2018 June 8]. Available from: http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/new-zealand-health-strategy-2016
