>  The original Kaiser-Permanente study included some babies that had birth
>defects, which inflated the cost savings. When Christine Hoey redid the
>calculations, there was still a $250/year savings for babies that were
>breastfed 6 months or longer.This was published in the American Journal of
>Managed Care, in June 1997.

Sigh.  I include a copy of US News & World Report Dec 15, 1997, pp 79-80,
with all of my insurance forms, because it talks about Aetna insurance co.
covering *everything* to do with lactation for its employees at its main
office (everything means from prenatal bfing classes to LC visits to pump
rentals) because it saves them money.

I've been highlighting the part that says "Since Aetna started its program
a year ago, it estimates a savings of $1435 on medical claims and of 3 days
of sick leave per breastfed baby.  That's a total savigns of $108,737 this
year - an almost 3-to-1 return on investment in claims alone."

But doggone, that $1435 figure is the exact number in the original Kaiser
study.  So I suppose they didn't do their own study, just relied on the
accuracy of Kaiser's.  So what do I do?  Stop highlighting that part?  The
article sure makes a persuasive case to insurance companies...

(So why doesn't Aetna routinely cover lactation costs for its insurees?  As
someone explained to me, insurance companies aren't in the business of
paying legitimate claims, they're in the business of not paying.  My
clients will pay to see me whether or not they get reimbursed.  By failing
to cover my services, which provide the insurance company with an
overall-cheaper baby, the company wins twice.

Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC  Ithaca, NY