 |
|
A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Newborn Hearing Screening Strategies
Alex R. Kemper, MD, MPH;
Stephen M. Downs, MD, MS
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:484-488.
Context Congenital hearing loss affects between 1 and 3 out of every 1000 children. Screening of all neonates has been made possible by the development of portable automated devices. Universal screening is a 2-stage screening process using automated transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions, followed when indicated by automated auditory brain response testing. Targeted screening reserves the 2-stage screening process for those infants at risk for congenital hearing loss.
Objective To compare the expected costs and benefits of targeted screening with universal screening for the detection of significant bilateral congenital hearing loss.
Design Cost-effectiveness analysis from the health care system perspective, including costs directly related to screening and initial follow-up evaluation.
Main Outcome Measures Number of cases identified, number of false positives, and cost per case.
Results For every 100,000 newborns screened, universal screening detects 86 of 110 cases of congenital hearing loss, at a cost of $11,650 per case identified. Targeted screening identifies 51 of 110 cases, at $3120 per case identified. Universal screening produces 320 false-positive results, 304 more than targeted screening. Switching to universal screening from targeted screening would cost an additional $23,930 for each extra case detected.
Conclusions Universal screening detects more cases of congenital hearing loss, at the expense of both greater cost and more false-positive screening results. Little is known about the negative impact of false-positive screening and about the benefits of early intervention for congenital hearing loss. Those who advocate adoption of universal screening should be aware not only of the direct costs of universal screening, but of the indirect costs and strategies to increase the benefits of screening.
From the Children's Primary Care Research Group, Department of Pediatrics University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
A Safety Assessment of Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists During Pregnancy: A Review of the Food and Drug Administration Database
CARTER et al.
The Journal of Rheumatology 2009;36:635-641.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Hearing-Impaired Children Under Sedation Before Cochlear Implantation
Patel et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133:677-683.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Lack Quality in Pediatric Care: A Critical Review of Published Cost-Utility Studies in Child Health
Griebsch et al.
Pediatrics 2005;115:e600-e614.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Newborn Screening by Tandem Mass Spectrometry for Medium-Chain Acyl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Venditti et al.
Pediatrics 2003;112:1005-1015.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Six month impact of false positives in an Australian infant hearing screening programme
Poulakis et al.
Arch. Dis. Child. 2003;88:20-24.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Projected Cost-Effectiveness of Statewide Universal Newborn Hearing Screening
Keren et al.
Pediatrics 2002;110:855-864.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Maternal Concern About Positive Test Results in Universal Newborn Hearing Screening
Weichbold and Welzl-Mueller
Pediatrics 2001;108:1111-1116.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening
Lahr and Kemper
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:421-422.
FULL TEXT
Minimizing False-Positives in Universal Newborn Hearing Screening: A Simple Solution
Clemens and Davis
Pediatrics 2001;107:29e-29.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
AAP News 2000;17:2-3.
FULL TEXT
|
