Objectives. We compared childbirth-related outcomes for Medicaid recipients who received prenatal education and childbirth support from trained doulas with outcomes from a national sample of similar women and estimated potential cost savings.

Methods. We calculated descriptive statistics for Medicaid-funded births nationally (from the 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample; n = 279 008) and births supported by doula care (n = 1079) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 2010 to 2012; used multivariate regression to estimate impacts of doula care; and modeled potential cost savings associated with reductions in cesarean delivery for doula-supported births.

Results. The cesarean rate was 22.3% among doula-supported births and 31.5% among Medicaid beneficiaries nationally. The corresponding preterm birth rates were 6.1% and 7.3%, respectively. After control for clinical and sociodemographic factors, odds of cesarean delivery were 40.9% lower for doula-supported births (adjusted odds ratio = 0.59; P < .001). Potential cost savings to Medicaid programs associated with such cesarean rate reductions are substantial but depend on states’ reimbursement rates, birth volume, and current cesarean rates.

Conclusions. State Medicaid programs should consider offering coverage for birth doulas to realize potential cost savings associated with reduced cesarean rates.

In 2009, 4.1 million babies were born in US hospitals.1 Childbirth is the most frequent reason for hospitalization in the United States, and charges for maternity and newborn care exceed those for any other category of hospital expense for both public and private payers.2 Hospital costs for childbirth totaled $27.6 billion in 2009,3 and state Medicaid programs paid for 45% of all US births that year, indicating an extraordinary public-sector investment in hospital-based childbirth care.3,4

Costs are higher for cesarean deliveries and for births with clinical complications.5,6 Delivery-related complications are increasingly common and occur with highest frequency among women of color and low-income women.7,8 Racial/ethnic minorities have higher rates of cesarean delivery and worse birth outcomes than their White counterparts.9,10 Medicaid beneficiaries have a higher risk of preterm birth (< 37 weeks gestation) and low birth weight (< 2500 g) than do privately insured women.11,12 The strong link between income, race/ethnicity, and adverse birth outcomes has been well documented,13–15 but effective means of reducing this disparity are lacking.16 In a time of increasing fiscal pressures on health care systems and state Medicaid budgets, the need to stem the rising cost of maternity care is urgent.4,17

The sizeable public health and financial stake in childbirth care has engendered a growing interest in potential clinical models and policy tools that payers, hospitals, and health care providers can employ to achieve the triple aim of improved patient outcomes and better population health at lower cost.17,18 The midwifery model of maternity care and freestanding birth centers have shown great promise,19 as have home-visiting programs.20,21 Provisions of the Affordable Care Act are designed to increase access to these services via Medicaid coverage, among other policy tools.22,23 Another type of low-intervention care is continuous labor support from a birth doula, a type of care that is not typically reimbursed by health insurance.24

Unlike physicians, midwives, and obstetrical nurses, who provide medical care, doulas provide support in the nonmedical aspects of labor and delivery.25,26 The Doula Organization of North America (DONA), the largest organization of certified doulas, defines a birth doula as a “person trained and experienced in childbirth who provides continuous physical, emotional and informational support to the mother before, during and just after birth.”27 Randomized controlled trials provide strong evidence for the clinical benefits of continuous labor support.28,29 A recent Cochrane systematic review of the effects of continuous labor support revealed higher rates of spontaneous vaginal birth and lower odds of cesarean delivery, lower rates of regional anesthesia (e.g., epidural), lower rates of instrument-assisted delivery (i.e., forceps and vacuum), shorter labors, and higher levels of satisfaction among women who received labor support.28 The review indicated that labor support was most effective when provided by an individual such as a doula, who was not on the hospital’s staff and was not a family member or close friend without specialized training.28

In the United States, most doulas are middle-aged, married, and well-educated White women from upper-middle-class households.24 Although limited information is available about the characteristics of women who use doula care, it is likely that lack of insurance coverage for these services restricts financial access for low-income women, and limited racial/ethnic diversity of doulas (84% are White) may also influence the diversity of potential clients.24,30 In the US context, observational associations between doula care and positive birth outcomes may reflect a population of women with greater resources, better health status, and specific birth experience intentions or higher-risk women with access to doula care through a specific program or intervention.31,32

Although the clinical benefits of doula services have been well documented, few studies have examined doula care in a policy context, where legislators debate statutory changes, administrators implement programs, regulators oversee enforcement, and payers make coverage and benefits decisions and negotiate reimbursement rates with providers. Limited research explores doula care among the low-income and racially/ethnically diverse women who compose approximately half of the US childbearing population and are at elevated risk for adverse birth outcomes and poor obstetric care quality.10 We compared childbirth-related outcomes for racially/ethnically diverse Medicaid recipients who received prenatal education and childbirth support from trained doulas with those for a national population of similar women and estimated potential cost savings associated with offering coverage for birth doula care as a Medicaid benefit.

Everyday Miracles is a group of doulas operating as a nonprofit organization with the goal of improving birth outcomes, parent–infant attachment, and breastfeeding skills. Everyday Miracles clients are referred through a Medicaid managed care plan and receive childbirth and breastfeeding education, continuous labor support, and prenatal and postpartum care from trained doulas at no out-of-pocket expense. From 2010 to 2012, Everyday Miracles employed 22 active doulas, all of whom completed DONA training requirements and were either DONA certified or working toward certification. DONA training requires completing a minimum of 28 hours of structured classroom instruction (≥ 16 hours in a DONA International–approved training workshop and ≥ 12 hours in an accredited childbirth education series), reading at least 5 books from the DONA International Birth Doula Required Reading List, and completing coursework in breastfeeding support or becoming a certified lactation consultant. Certification requires that the doula pass a written exam and apprentice for at least 3 births (≥ 2 of which must be vaginal deliveries), and develop an extensive referral network and listing of local support resources. This comprehensive training and certification process is described in detail on DONA’s training Web site (http://www.dona.org/develop/certification.php).

Everyday Miracles makes a concerted effort to match doulas with clients on race/ethnicity and language and to recruit, train, and hire doulas with this goal in mind. The doulas were therefore distinctive in their diversity. As of 2012, 12 were White, 4 Latino, 3 Somali, 2 Hmong, and 1 Black, with limited turnover during the study period.

The study population comprised 2 groups: women who had Medicaid-funded singleton births nationwide (n = 279 008) and Medicaid beneficiaries whose labor and delivery were supported by doula care provided by Everyday Miracles (n = 1079).

We used data from 279 008 childbirth hospitalizations for singleton births in 44 states, where the primary payer was Medicaid, from the 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The NIS is an all-payer inpatient claims database designed to approximate a 20% stratified sample of US hospitals.33 We also obtained state-level HCUP data on all Medicaid-funded deliveries, including hospital charges for Medicaid-funded births associated with relevant diagnosis-related groups, from HCUPNet,34 which generates estimates from the Statewide Inpatient Databases, a census of inpatient claims for participating states. To enable the conversion of hospital charges into costs of providing care, we used regional estimates of cost-to-charge ratios5 and applied the appropriate regional conversion factor to each of the 35 states for which data on charges were available in 2009.

Data on doula-supported births came from de-identified reports of routinely collected client services utilization information for women served by Everyday Miracles doulas. Doulas filled out standardized enrollment and childbirth data forms, and trained interns entered data for our study into an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft, Redmond, WA); Everyday Miracles management and study investigators verified accuracy prior to data analysis. We used information for the 1079 women served by Everyday Miracles who delivered singleton babies between January 1, 2010, and April 30, 2012, all of whom were Medicaid recipients.

We used all available data from both sources for analysis: every singleton US birth in 2009 found in the HCUP NIS (for outcomes) or HCUPNet (for costs) for which Medicaid was the primary payer and every singleton birth attended by Everyday Miracles doulas from January 2010 through April 2012.


We derived variables from administrative data collected by Everyday Miracles or by hospitals (and compiled by HCUP). Primary outcomes of interest were cesarean delivery and preterm birth, extracted from the Everyday Miracles childbirth data form. In HCUP NIS data, we used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure codes to identify cesarean delivery (740X, 741X, 742X, 744X, 7499) and preterm delivery (6442, 64420, 64421).35 For cesarean delivery we also used diagnosis-related groups payment codes (370, 371).36 These methods have been validated and are consistent with previous research with HCUP data.37,38

We also measured maternal age, race/ethnicity, and 2 major pregnancy-related complications, hypertension and diabetes. Maternal age and race/ethnicity were self-reported. Everyday Miracles distinguishes US-born and African-born Black women, because this distinction is relevant in the local context. We presented information for each of these groups, as well as combined results for all Black women for comparability with national estimates. Hypertension and diabetes were identified by patient report for doula data and by Clinical Classification System code 183 (hypertension) and 196 (diabetes) in HCUP NIS data.39

We handled missing data within the HCUP NIS according to established procedures defined in the HCUP Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality protocols and descriptions of data elements.33 We identified study outcomes and clinical variables from payment, diagnosis, and procedure codes, which were validated and complete. For sociodemographic factors, only race/ethnicity was missing in significant quantity (> 5%) in NIS data. When no race/ethnicity information was available, we classified race/ethnicity as missing for that individual. We conducted a sensitivity analysis that controlled separately for missing values in race/ethnicity variables (results remained consistent). No data were missing among doula-supported births because the administrative procedures used by Everyday Miracles required that doulas report information for each of the variables in our analysis.


We calculated means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for maternal characteristics, delivery mode, and birth outcomes for women whose singleton births were funded by Medicaid and supported by doula care (n = 1079) and for a national sample of women with Medicaid-funded singleton births (n = 279 008). We used the t test to evaluate rate differences. We used multivariate logistic regression models to estimate the impact of doula support on delivery mode and preterm birth, with adjustment for maternal age, race/ethnicity, and clinical complications among Medicaid recipients. All women in our samples had health insurance through Medicaid for their childbirth, and thus all met income eligibility thresholds, ensuring some consistency of socioeconomic status and health care access across the populations.

To assess the potential cost impacts of changes in delivery mode that may be associated with Medicaid reimbursement for continuous labor support from a trained doula, we used state-level data on Medicaid-funded births and associated costs and cesarean rates to model 3 different policy scenarios across a range of birth doula reimbursement rates ($100–$300; this range would reimburse for providing intrapartum support at the time of childbirth; other aspects of doula care, such as prenatal education and postpartum breastfeeding support, are separately reimbursed). The policy scenarios focused on intrapartum labor support and delivery mode (cesarean vs vaginal) and the potential costs and savings for a childbirth hospitalization from a payer perspective.

Scenario 1 modeled the potential annual cost savings to a state of reducing the cesarean rate to the rate experienced in doula-supported Medicaid births in our analysis (22.3%). Alternatively, we modeled scenarios in which birth doula reimbursement was associated with a certain percentage reduction in cesarean rates, derived from results from multivariate regression models. Scenario 2 calculated the state-level annual cost savings of reducing the cesarean rate for Medicaid-funded births by the percentage indicated by the adjusted odds ratios (AORs) produced via regression models, and scenario 3 calculated cost reductions associated with the percentage drop in cesarean rates indicated by the upper bound of the 95% CIs around the estimate used for scenario 2 (a more conservative estimate of the difference between the doula-supported births and all Medicaid births in this study). To facilitate interpretation, we divided states into quartiles, according to potential cost impacts under each of the 3 scenarios, and estimated the median annual state cost savings, as well as the 25th and 75th percentile for birth doula reimbursement rates from $100 to $300. We conducted all analyses with SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC).

The characteristics of pregnant Medicaid beneficiaries who received doula care were broadly similar to the general population of women whose births were covered by Medicaid (Table 1). However, women supported by doulas were more racially/ethnically diverse, were slightly older (27 vs 25 years), and had lower reported rates of gestational hypertension (3.8% vs 7.8%). Medicaid-funded births to women with doula support had a cesarean rate of 22.3% (95% CI = 19.8, 24.8), significantly lower than the cesarean rate in the general Medicaid population of 31.5% (95% CI = 31.3, 31.6). The average preterm birth rate was lower for women who received doula support than for Medicaid beneficiaries generally (6.1% vs 7.3%), but this difference was not statistically significant in uncontrolled comparisons.


TABLE 1— Characteristics of Hospital-Based, Medicaid-Funded Singleton Births, Nationally in 2009 and With Doula Support Among a Cohort in Minneapolis, MN, 2010–2012

TABLE 1— Characteristics of Hospital-Based, Medicaid-Funded Singleton Births, Nationally in 2009 and With Doula Support Among a Cohort in Minneapolis, MN, 2010–2012

CharacteristicMedicaid-Funded Deliveries (n = 279 008), Mean (95% CI)Medicaid-Funded Deliveries With Doula Support (n = 1079), Mean (95% CI)Difference
Age, y25.1 (25.1, 25.2)27.3 (26.9, 27.6)2.1*
Pregnancy-related complications, %
 Hypertension7.8 (7.7, 7.9)3.8 (2.7, 5.0)−4.0*
 Diabetes6.1 (6.0, 6.2)5.8 (4.4, 7.2)−0.3
Race/ethnicity, %
 Asian3.0 (2.9, 3.0)5.6 (4.2, 7.0)2.6*
 Black (total)20.2 (20.1, 20.4)46.3 (43.3, 49.3)26.1*
 US-born BlackNA10.3 (8.5, 12.2)NA
 African-born BlackNA35.9 (33.1, 38.8)NA
 White38.8 (38.6, 39.0)10.2 (8.4, 12.1)−28.6*
 Hispanic38.0 (37.8, 38.2)36.2 (33.3, 39.1)−1.8
Labor and delivery
Cesarean delivery, %31.5 (31.3, 31.6)22.3 (19.8, 24.8)−9.2*
Medication use, %
 EpiduralNA27.9 (25.2, 30.6)NA
 Other pain medicineNA19.9 (17.5, 22.3)NA
Birth outcomes, %
 Low birth weightNA4.2 (3.0, 5.4)NA
 Preterm birth7.3 (7.2, 7.4)6.1 (4.7, 7.6)−1.2

Note. CI = confidence interval; NA = not available in data set.

*P < .05.

We also calculated AORs for the association between doula care and study outcomes, with control for maternal race/ethnicity and age and for clinical complications (Table 2). Average cesarean rates were significantly lower in doula-supported Medicaid births than in Medicaid-funded births generally; doula care was associated with a 40.9% decreased odds of cesarean delivery (AOR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.51, 0.68; P < .001). Preterm birth rates were also lower among doula-supported than among all Medicaid-funded births, but this difference was not statistically significant (AOR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.63, 1.04). Other factors associated with higher preterm and cesarean delivery rates were Black race, older maternal age, maternal hypertension, and maternal diabetes. Hispanic and Asian women had lower preterm birth and cesarean delivery rates than did White women.


TABLE 2— Odds of Adverse Birth Outcomes for Hospital-Based, Medicaid-Funded, Singleton Births Nationally in 2009 and Supported by Doulas Among a Cohort in Minneapolis, MN, 2010–2012, With Control for Demographic and Clinical Factors

TABLE 2— Odds of Adverse Birth Outcomes for Hospital-Based, Medicaid-Funded, Singleton Births Nationally in 2009 and Supported by Doulas Among a Cohort in Minneapolis, MN, 2010–2012, With Control for Demographic and Clinical Factors

Preterm Birth, AOR (95% CI)Cesarean Delivery, AOR (95% CI)
Doula support0.81 (0.63, 1.04)0.59 (0.51, 0.68)
 Asian0.84 (0.77, 0.93)0.78 (0.74, 0.82)
 Black1.42 (1.37, 1.47)1.07 (1.04, 1.09)
 Hispanic0.85 (0.82, 0.88)0.96 (0.94, 0.97)
 White (Ref)1.001.00
Age, y
 < 201.06 (1.02, 1.11)0.68 (0.67, 0.70)
 21–251.01 (0.97, 1.04)0.95 (0.93, 0.97)
 26–30 (Ref)1.001.00
 31–351.08 (1.03, 1.13)1.28 (1.25, 1.31)
 ≥ 361.22 (1.15, 1.30)1.54 (1.49, 1.59)
Pregnancy-related complications
 Hypertension2.32 (2.23, 2.42)1.89 (1.83, 1.94)
 Diabetes1.50 (1.42, 1.58)1.75 (1.69, 1.81)

Note. AOR = Adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Sample size = 280 087.

With 3 scenarios generated by empirically driven assumptions, we simulated annual cost impacts to state Medicaid programs that might result from a reduction in cesarean delivery rates associated with reimbursement of birth doula services. Table 3 provides detailed state-level information on these calculations, with the number of Medicaid-funded births, the cesarean rate for Medicaid-funded births, the total annual Medicaid payments to hospitals for childbirth, and the potential cost impacts associated with the scenarios. We used this information to calculate the cost impacts shown in Figure 1.


TABLE 3— Estimated Annual Savings to State Medicaid Programs Resulting From Reduction in Cesarean Delivery Rates Associated With Doula Services Among a Cohort in Minneapolis, MN, 2010–2012, by Reimbursement Rate

TABLE 3— Estimated Annual Savings to State Medicaid Programs Resulting From Reduction in Cesarean Delivery Rates Associated With Doula Services Among a Cohort in Minneapolis, MN, 2010–2012, by Reimbursement Rate

StateMedicaid Births in 2009, No.Cesarean Deliveries in 2009 Medicaid Births, %Estimated 2009 Medicaid Payments to Hospitals for Childbirth, $Scenario 1: Savings With 22.3% Cesarean Rate, by Birth Doula Reimbursement Amounta
Scenario 2: Savings With Cesarean Rate Reduced by 40.8%, Birth Doula by Reimbursement Amountb
Scenario 3: Savings With Cesarean Rate Reduced by 31.6%, by Birth Doula Reimbursement Amountc
$300, $$200, $$100, $$300, $$200, $$100, $$300, $$200, $$100, $
Arkansas21 60234.14159 693 579−483 9631 676 2373 836 437573 9802 734 1804 894 380−1 016 7591 143 4413 303 641
Arizona44 88426.61282 710 234−6 249 819−1 761 4192 726 98112 925 80117 414 20121 902 60117 027 10521 515 50526 003 905
California246 43932.272 277 662,65350 386 31675 030 21699 674 116164 350 905188 994 805213 638 705201 381 310226 025 210250 669 110
Colorado24 06823.64147 560 306−5 975 935−3 569 135−1 162 3355 764 3798 171 17910 577 9797 782 28410 189 08412 595 884
Florida110 86436.751 400 051,28014 438 20425 524 60436 611 00438 552 97049 639 37060 725 77049 712 96960 799 36971 885 769
Hawaii614025.7329 066 661−1 297 455−683 455−69 455574 4801 188 4801 802 480950 0141 564 0142 178 014
Illinois74 64628.86526 716 590−892 1106 572 49014 037 09033 595 75441 060 35448 524 954−11 420 83849 761 43357 226 033
Iowa13 82428.7665 393 014−1 194 848187 5521 569 9523 632 5245 014 9246 397 3244 841 5366 223 9367 606 336
Kansas12 14130.0475 733 972−698 119515 9811 730 0813 123 1834 337 2835 551 3834 174 5765 388 6766 602 776
Kentucky25 16035.72117 429 199383 6992 899 6995 415 6994 948 2247 464 2249 980 2246 890 2059 406 20511 922 205
Maine601228.5924 158 540−575 94025 260626 4601 498 6632 099 8632 701 0632 011 8532 613 0533 214 253
Maryland27 65430.5295 050 379−5 777 767−3 012 367−246 967−2 760 59748032 770 203−1 900 334865 0663 630 466
Massachusetts23 57029.64117 520 821−2 763 357−406 3571 950 6433 227 4415 584 4417 941 4414 827 8757 184 8759 541 875
Michigan48 31130.12262 689 941−2 711 4392 119 6616 950 76112 362 42617 193 52622 024 62616 535 95121 367 05126 198 151
Minnesota859126.4953 775 975−972 856−113 756745 3443 424 2924 283 3925 142 4924 356 9725 216 0726 075 172
Missouri34 17730.21209 320 982−1 499 6511 918 0495 335 7499 542 95012 960 65016 378 35012 619 36316 037 06319 454 763
Nebraska794429.6640 180 116−98 398696 0021 490 4023 068 9773 863 3774 657 7773 916 2754 710 6755 505 075
Nevada11 08731.5067 596 255858 9211 967 6213 076 3215 159 1406 267 8407 376 5406 477 7927 586 4928 695 192
New Hampshire399028.0517 844 658−669 029−270 029128 971328 775727 7751 126 775565 889964 8891 363 889
New Mexico14 45421.8862 430 527−4 513 493−3 068 093−1 622 6931 174 5882 619 9884 065 3882 030 9953 476 3954 921 795
New Jersey23 59832.41270 147 8004 694 9527 054 7529 414 55215 260 19917 619 99919 979 79918 731 89421 091 69423 451 494
New York97 09231.45507 671 529−6 152 8943 556 30613 265 50617 611 71027 320 91037 030 11024 875 25134 584 45144 293 651
North Carolina59 12728.60282 968 323−6 553 980−641 2805 271 42012 302 29718 214 99724 127 69716 970 73722 883 43728 796 137
Oklahoma28 67033.71168 520 929868 8313 735 8316 602 8317 960 77610 827 77613 694 77610 534 56613 401 56616 268 566
Oregon19 77928.3198 998 489−2 016 382−38 4821 939 4184 986 0676 963 9678 941 8676 683 0588 660 95810 638 858
Rhode Island514428.3440 126 480−415 51598 885613 2851 587 6562 102 0562 616 4562 074 2082 588 6083 103 008
South Carolina23 16633.24151 860 5952 503 2004 819 8007 136 40010 050 77512 367 37514 683 97512 692 75715 009 35717 325 957
Tennessee37 55632.52206 897 080173 2813 928 8817 684 48110 280 32114 035 92117 791 52113 628 86017 384 46021 140 060
Texas194 15734.421 203 431,56112 708 57532 124 27551 539 97561 019 69280 435 39299 851 09279 554 39698 970 096118 385 796
Utah15 62223.9756 171 062−4 117 148−2 554 948−992 748145 1101 707 3103 269 510895 9842 458 1844 020 384
Vermont243227.479 771 389−388 163−144 96398 237344 878588 078831 278511 857755 057998 257
Washington31 27428.35174 656 160−2 840 958286 4423 413 8428 772 64511 900 04515 027 44511 594 00614 721 40617 848 806
West Virginia10 71435.1241 670 222−1 126 293−54 8931 016 507171 5161 242 9162 314 3163 911 8741 769 0742 840 474
Wisconsin25 05823.11132 079 135−6 729 124−4 223 324−1 717 5245 727 7818 233 58110 739 3817 786 15310 291 95312 797 753
Wyoming263427.7913 823 634−165 65197 749361 1491 081 2461 344 6461 608 0461 372 0781 635 4781 898 878
State savings
 Maximum50 386 31675 030 21699 674 116164 350 905188 994 805213 638 705201 381 310226 025 210250 669 110
 75th Percentile37 4413 228 0036 776 79611 291 30915 614 72318 885 66013 160 80819 238 07722 295 777
 Median−892 110187 5521 950 6434 986 0676 963 9678 941 8676 477 7928 660 95810 638 858
 25th Percentile−2 802 158−338 193487 2171 336 6262 361 0223 667 4492 021 4242 600 8303 825 425
 Minimum−6 729 124−4 223 324−1 717 524−2 760 5974803831 278−11 420 838755 057998 257

aAverage rate for doula-supported births.

bDerived from adjusted odds ratio of 0.592 for risk of cesarean delivery in doula-supported births, calculated from multivariate analysis of odds of cesarean delivery for doula-supported, Medicaid-funded births (n = 1079) compared with a national sample of Medicaid-funded births (n = 279 008).

cDerived from upper-bound 95% confidence interval for adjusted odds ratio of 0.592 for risk of cesarean delivery in doula-supported births, calculated from multivariate analysis of odds of cesarean delivery for doula-supported, Medicaid-funded births (n = 1079) compared with a national sample of Medicaid-funded births (n = 279 008).

Under the assumption that a state could reduce its cesarean rate for Medicaid births to 22.3% by offering birth doula services to beneficiaries (the rate experienced by Medicaid recipients served by Everyday Miracles doulas), approximately half of states would experience cost savings at a $200 birth doula reimbursement rate. Annual savings might exceed $2.5 million for up to a quarter of all states (Figure 1a). At a $100 reimbursement rate, three quarters of states would likely see cost savings. Figure 1b shows estimated annual cost impacts for a 40.9% reduction in the cesarean rate among Medicaid-funded births, indicating likely savings for nearly all states, even at a birth doula reimbursement rate of $300. In this scenario nearly all states would save at least $2 million per year for a $200 rate, and for a $100 reimbursement, savings might exceed $9 million annually for at least half of states. The final scenario (Figure 1c) is a more conservative estimate of the potential reduction in cesarean rates (showing a 31.6% reduction) and also indicates broad and substantial potential cost savings across a range of reimbursement rates, in nearly all state settings.

Consistent with the results of randomized controlled trials of the clinical benefits of continuous labor support from trained doulas,28,29 our analysis indicated that low-income, ethnically diverse women could experience reduced rates of cesarean delivery. The odds of cesarean delivery were 40.9% lower for Medicaid-funded births with doula support than for Medicaid-funded births generally. Among vulnerable subgroups, such as Black women, lower cesarean and preterm rates for doula-supported births are indicative of the role doulas could play in reducing persistent racial/ethnic disparities in these outcomes if high-quality doula services were made financially and culturally accessible to women at highest risk of poor outcomes.7,10

Increasing financial access by offering coverage of birth doula care would be costly to state Medicaid programs, but these costs might be offset by reductions in payments to hospitals and clinicians (fees for cesarean deliveries being substantially higher than for vaginal deliveries), should cesarean rates decrease sufficiently without adverse health consequences. Our findings indicate that cost savings would depend on many state-level factors, such as the number of Medicaid-funded births, the cesarean delivery rate, and reimbursement rates for childbirth services.

The policy scenarios presented here used a payer perspective and calculated costs (of reimbursing doulas for intrapartum support) and savings (associated with lower cesarean rates) in the context of a childbirth hospitalization. It is possible that achieving the outcomes suggested by our analysis would require reimbursement of comprehensive doula services, beyond intrapartum support, in which case the policy scenarios might have overestimated potential savings. On the other hand, doula support might affect childbirth costs via changes in obstetric care beyond delivery mode. Although we examined the cost impacts of changes in cesarean delivery rates associated with doula care, previous research indicates that continuous labor support is also associated with reductions in instrument-assisted delivery, epidural anesthesia, and other obstetric care interventions, without adverse quality impacts.28 Indeed, infants born to mothers who received continuous labor support have significantly higher 5-minute Apgar scores.28,40 In addition, the cost impacts presented in Figure 1 solely relate to childbirth hospitalization and not to long-term health and social benefits or intergenerational transfers of health that may accrue from improving the quality of maternity care.13 From this perspective, our potential cost savings may be a conservative estimate.

Financial and Cultural Access

Although some doulas offer sliding-scale fees according to income, charges for comprehensive doula services range from $300 to more than $1800, depending on geographic location and the doula’s level of experience.40,41 Most Medicaid maternity care benefit packages do not include birth doula care. Oregon’s Medicaid program recently received a federal waiver, making it the first state to include birth doulas in its Medicaid program.42 Some doulas, including those who provided care to our study population, are reimbursed by Medicaid programs for childbirth-related education (e.g., car seat demonstrations and breastfeeding support), but are not reimbursed for support during labor and delivery, a core function of their training and profession. The vast majority of certified doulas recognize a need for health insurance coverage of doula services,24 and DONA and the International Childbirth Education Association have established training and certification programs and payment code information.43,44

Our analysis was intended to inform policy discussions at state public health agencies and Medicaid programs regarding benefits and potential cost savings associated with inclusion of doula care as a Medicaid benefit. Although conditions vary across states, we demonstrated that a state Medicaid program that offers coverage for birth doula care might improve outcomes and reduce costs. To consider this potential coverage policy change, policymakers must assess available evidence in the context of whether and how the proposed intervention could be effectively implemented in their particular setting. They need to evaluate the logistics of implementation, absorptive capacity, training and human capital, measurement, evaluation, enforcement, and sociocultural obstacles.

Studies suggest that doulas can serve diverse populations,32,40,45,46 but the majority of women who receive doula care are women with resources, support, and in-depth education about birth options.24 The women who stand to benefit the most from doula care have the least access to it—both financially and culturally. Most doulas are White middle-class women serving White middle-class women.24 Racial/ethnic concordance between patient and provider is an important facilitator of access to health care services and may also be relevant in the context of doula care.47–50 Recruiting a diverse population of trained doulas, however, may be difficult in the current environment. It is likely that doula work will not become more lucrative or appealing unless more people are willing to pay for these services or third-party reimbursement becomes more common.24 Doulas themselves report that their work is emotionally satisfying but not financially rewarding.24 Broadening the payer base will likely enhance the feasibility of a doula care business model for a wider range of women and facilitate recruitment of doulas from low-income communities, communities of color, and immigrant communities.


Our doula data came from 1 practice in 1 state; however, our results were consistent with Cochrane review findings.28 Our 2 data sources were not from the same period; doula data were collected in 2010 to 2012, and the most recent data available through HCUP at the time of the analysis were from 2009. Because little change was observed in preterm birth and cesarean rates in 2009 to 2011,1,9 this difference likely had minimal effects on interpretation of our findings. Information on maternal complications came from hospital discharge reports in HCUP data and patient self-reports in doula data. Any underreporting of maternal complications among doula-supported births would have a downward bias on results, lending credence to our findings.

We did not have information on educational attainment, marital status, prenatal care, and other risk markers or whether Medicaid beneficiaries in HCUP data received doula care. Selection bias could have arisen from Medicaid beneficiaries’ choice to use doula services in lieu of traditional childbirth education. Differences in reporting conventions precluded comparisons for certain racial/ethnic subgroups. Finally, we estimated cost data from charges, converted with a regional cost-to-charge ratio, because we were unable to identify a source of accurate state-level cost data for childbirth-related hospitalizations. Improved data collection and reporting as doula payment codes are adopted are vital to improving these estimates.


Policy action to increase access to doula care has been slow to develop, in spite of well-established clinical benefits. We modeled potential cost impacts to state Medicaid programs of offering coverage for birth doula services under various scenarios; our results suggest that cost savings are feasible for the majority of states across a range of reimbursement rates. Although our estimates can serve as a guide for states to better understand the cost of cesarean delivery and the role of birth doulas in mitigating cost and improving outcomes, states should consider internal analyses to investigate whether reimbursing birth doulas may result in improved birth outcomes and possibly cost savings for their Medicaid programs.

Payers, including state Medicaid programs that facilitate access to doula services via coverage policies, could capture cost savings associated with reduced cesarean delivery rates. Doula care may also hold promise for addressing persistent racial/ethnic disparities in birth outcomes.


This work was supported by a Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health Grant (K12HD055887) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Office of Research on Women’s Health, and the National Institute on Aging, administered by the University of Minnesota Deborah E. Powell Center for Women’s Health.

The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful input, guidance, and collaboration from Debby L. Prudhomme, CD (DONA) and Mary R. Williams, LPN, CD (DONA), cofounders of Everyday Miracles Inc. We sincerely appreciate data entry support from Lauren Hindt. This research would not have been possible without the extraordinary work of the doulas employed by Everyday Miracles. K. B. Kozhimannil extends particular thanks to Teresa Stewart and Maria Rader.

Human Participant Protection

The University of Minnesota institutional review board exempted this study from approval because it used de-indentified administrative data.


1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton P, et al. Births: Final Data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011;60(1):170. MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Sakala C, Corry MP, Fund MM. Evidence-Based Maternity Care: What It Is and What It Can Achieve. New York, NY: Milbank Memorial Fund; 2008. Google Scholar
3. Corry M, Thompson J, Dilweg AC, Mazza F. Caesar’s Ghost: The Effect of the Rising Rate of C-Sections on Health Care Costs and Quality. Washington, DC: National Health Policy Forum; 2012. Google Scholar
4. Markus AR, Rosenbaum S. The role of Medicaid in promoting access to high-quality, high-value maternity care. Womens Health Issues. 2010;20(1 suppl):S67S78. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. The Healthcare Costs of Having a Baby. Santa Barbara, CA: Thomson Healthcare; 2007. Available at: http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/whp061207othc.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2013. Google Scholar
6. Podulka J, Stranges E, Steiner C. Hospitalizations Related to Childbirth, 2008. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. Statistical brief 110. Google Scholar
7. Berns SD, Kott A, eds. Toward Improving the Outcome of Pregnancy III: Enhancing Perinatal Health Through Quality, Safety and Performance Initiatives. White Plains, NY: March of Dimes National Foundation; 2010. Google Scholar
8. Elixhauser A, Wier LM. Complicating Conditions of Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2008. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. HCUP statistical brief 113. Available at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb113.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2013. Google Scholar
9. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Mathews T, Osterman MJ. Births: final data for 2008. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010;59(1):172. MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Bryant AS, Worjoloh A, Caughey AB, Washington AE. Racial/ethnic disparities in obstetric outcomes and care: prevalence and determinants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(4):335343. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Krieger JW, Connell FA, LoGerfo JP. Medicaid prenatal care: a comparison of use and outcomes in fee-for-service and managed care. Am J Public Health. 1992;82(2):185190. LinkGoogle Scholar
12. Schwethelm B, Margolis LH, Miller C, Smith S. Risk status and pregnancy outcome among medicaid recipients. Am J Prev Med. 1989;5(3):157163. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Lu MC, Halfon N. Racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes: a life-course perspective. Matern Child Health J. 2003;7(1):1330. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Collins JW Jr, Herman AA, David RJ. Very-low-birthweight infants and income incongruity among African American and White parents in Chicago. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(3):414417. LinkGoogle Scholar
15. Lu MC, Kotelchuck M, Hogan VK, Johnson K, Reyes C. Innovative strategies to reduce disparities in the quality of prenatal care in underresourced settings. Med Care Res Rev. 2010;67(5 suppl):198S230S. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. Institute of MedicineWashington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006. IOM report brief. Google Scholar
17. Transforming Maternity Care Symposium Steering Committee, Angood PB, Armstrong EM, et al. Blueprint for action: steps toward a high-quality, high-value maternity care system. Womens Health Issues. 2010;20(1 suppl):S18S49. MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Chassin MR, Loeb JM, Schmaltz SP, Wachter RM. Accountability measures—using measurement to promote quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(7):683688. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Jackson DJ, Lang JM, Swartz WH, et al. Outcomes, safety, and resource utilization in a collaborative care birth center program compared with traditional physician-based perinatal care. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(6):9991006. LinkGoogle Scholar
20. Olds DL, Kitzman HJ, Cole RE, et al. Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on maternal life course and government spending: follow-up of a randomized trial among children at age 12 years. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(5):419424. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Kitzman H, Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, et al. Effect of prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated childbearing. JAMA. 1997;278(8):644652. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Johnson KA. Women’s health and health reform: implications of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22(6):492497. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Sakala C. Health care reform legislation offers major new gains to childbearing women and newborns. Birth. 2010;37(4):337340. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Lantz PM, Low LK, Varkey S, Watson RL. Doulas as childbirth paraprofessionals: results from a national survey. Womens Health Issues. 2005;15(3):109116. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Klaus MH, Kennell JH. The doula: an essential ingredient of childbirth rediscovered. Acta Paediatr. 1997;86(10):10341036. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Klaus MH, Kennell JH, Klaus PH. Mothering the Mother: How a Doula Can Help You Have a Shorter, Easier, and Healthier Birth. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, Addison-Wesley Reading; 1993. Google Scholar
27. Birth doula FAQs. The Doula Organization of North America (DONA). Available at: http://www.dona.org/mothers/faqs_birth.php. Accessed January 15, 2013. Google Scholar
28. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, Weston J. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;16(2):CD003766. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
29. Zhang J, Bernasko JW, Leybovich E, Fahs M, Hatch MC. Continuous labor support from labor attendant for primiparous women: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88(4 pt 2):739744. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. McGrath SK, Kennell JH. A randomized controlled trial of continuous labor support for middle-class couples: effect on cesarean delivery rates. Birth. 2008;35(2):9297. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Mottl-Santiago J, Walker C, Ewan J, Vragovic O, Winder S, Stubblefield P. A hospital-based doula program and childbirth outcomes in an urban, multicultural setting. Matern Child Health J. 2008;12(3):372377. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Dundek LH. Establishment of a Somali doula program at a large metropolitan hospital. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2006;20(2):128137. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Overview of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Health Care Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2013. Available at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed January 14, 2013. Google Scholar
34. Miller DC, Gust C, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer N, Skinner J, Birkmeyer JD. Large variations In Medicare payments for surgery highlight savings potential from bundled payment programs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(11):21072115. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1980. Google Scholar
36. Averill RF, Goldfield N, Hughs JS, et al. All patient refined diagnosis related groups (APR-DRGs): methodology overview. Version 20.0. 2013. Available at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/APR-DRGsV20MethodologyOverviewandBibliography.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2013. Google Scholar
37. Kuklina EV, Whiteman MK, Hillis SD, et al. An enhanced method for identifying obstetric deliveries: implications for estimating maternal morbidity. Matern Child Health J. 2008;12(4):469477. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Kuklina E, Callaghan W. Chronic heart disease and severe obstetric morbidity among hospitalisations for pregnancy in the USA: 1995–2006. BJOG. 2011;118(3):345352. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Clinical classification software (CCS) for ICD-9-CM. Washington, DC: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. Available at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs/ccs.jsp. Accessed January 14, 2013. Google Scholar
40. Campbell DA, Lake MF, Falk M, Backstrand JR. A randomized control trial of continuous support in labor by a lay doula. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2006;35(4):456464. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
41. The cost of a doula. Doula.com Web site. Western Belt Buckles; 2006. Available at: http://www.doula.com. Accessed January 15, 2013. Google Scholar
42. Tillman T, Gilmer R, Foster A. Utilizing doulas to improve birth outcomes among underserved women in Oregon. Salem: Oregon Health Authority; 2012. Available at: http://www.oregon.gov/oha/legactivity/2012/hb3311report-doulas.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2013. Google Scholar
43. Wennberg JE. Practice variations and health care reform: connecting the dots. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;suppl variation:VAR140–VAR141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
44. Newhouse JP, Garber A. Geographic Variation in Health Care Spending and Promotion of High-Value Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010. Google Scholar
45. Breedlove G. Perceptions of social support from pregnant and parenting teens using community-based doulas. J Perinat Educ. 2005;14(3):1522. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Small R, Gagnon A, Gissler M, et al. Somali women and their pregnancy outcomes postmigration: data from six receiving countries. BJOG. 2008;115(13):16301640. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
47. Strumpf EC. Racial/ethnic disparities in primary care: the role of physician-patient concordance. Med Care. 2011;49(5):496503. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
48. Cooper LA, Roter DL, Johnson RL, Ford DE, Steinwachs DM, Powe NR. Patient-centered communication, ratings of care, and concordance of patient and physician race. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(11):907915. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
49. Saha S, Komaromy M, Koepsell TD, Bindman AB. Patient-physician racial concordance and the perceived quality and use of health care. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(9):9971004. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
50. LaVeist TA, Carroll T. Race of physician and satisfaction with care among African-American patients. J Natl Med Assoc. 2002;94(11):937943. MedlineGoogle Scholar


No related items




Katy Backes Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Rachel R. Hardeman, MPH, Laura B. Attanasio, BA, Cori Blauer-Peterson, MPH, and Michelle O’Brien, MD, MPHKaty Backes Kozhimannil, Rachel R. Hardeman, Laura B. Attanasio, and Cori Blauer-Peterson are with the Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, and Michelle O’Brien is with the Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Michelle O’Brien is also a family physician in private practice. “Doula Care, Birth Outcomes, and Costs Among Medicaid Beneficiaries”, American Journal of Public Health 103, no. 4 (April 1, 2013): pp. e113-e121.


PMID: 23409910