Cost-Effectiveness of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation in Rural China.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost utility of cochlear implantation (CI) for severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) among children from rural settings in P.R. China (China). RESEARCH DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was undertaken using data generated from a single-center substudy of the Cochlear Pediatric Implanted Recipient Observational Study (Cochlear P-IROS). The data were projected over a 20-year time horizon using a decision tree model. SETTING: The Chinese healthcare payer and patient perspectives were adopted. INTERVENTION: Unilateral CI of children with a severe-to-profound SNHL compared with their preimplantation state of no treatment or amplification with hearing aids ("no CI" status). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE/S: Incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: The mean total discounted cost of unilateral CI was CNY 252,506 (37,876 USD), compared with CNY 29,005 (4,351 USD) for the no CI status from the healthcare payer plus patient perspective. A total discounted benefit of 8.9 QALYs was estimated for CI recipients compared with 6.7 QALYs for the no CI status. From the healthcare payer plus patient perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for unilateral CI compared with no CI was CNY 100,561 (15,084 USD) per QALY. The healthcare payer perspective yielded an ICER of CNY 40,929 (6,139 USD) per QALY. Both ICERs fell within one to three times China's gross domestic product per capita (GDP, 2011-2015), considered "cost-effective" by World Health Organization (WHO) standards. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with unilateral CI is a cost-effective hearing solution for children with severe to profound SNHL in rural China. Increased access to mainstream education and greater opportunities for employment, are potential downstream benefits of CI that may yield further societal and economic benefits. CI may be considered favorably for broader inclusion in medical insurance schemes across China.

Cost-utility analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a health economic assessment from the perspective of a publicly funded program.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) in deaf adults. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. METHODS: Ninety patients and 52 health professionals served as proxies to estimate the benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation, utilizing the Health Utility Index. Three scenarios were created to reflect 1) deafness without intervention, 2) unilateral CI, and 3) bilateral CI. Cost evaluation reflected the burden on a publicly funded healthcare system. The base case included 25 years of service provision, processor upgrades every 5 years, 50% price reduction for second side, and 15% failure rate. Discounting and sensitivity analyses were applied. RESULTS: Costs were $63,632 (unilateral CI), $111,764 (bilateral CI), and $48,132 (incremental cost of second CI). The health preference gained from no intervention to unilateral CI, and to bilateral CI were 0.270 and 0.305. Incremental utility gained by the second implant was 11.5% of total. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $14,658/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for bilateral CI compared to no intervention. It was stable regardless of discounting or sensitivity analyses. ICUR was $55,020/QALY from unilateral to bilateral CI with higher uncertainties. It improved with differential discounting, further second-side price reduction, and reduced frequency of processor upgrades. ICUR worsened with reduced length of use and higher failure rates. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential bilateral CI was cost-effective when compared to no intervention, although gains were made mostly by the first implant. Cost-effectiveness compared to unilateral implantation was borderline but improved through base case variations to reflect long-term gains or cost-saving measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C.

Safety of audiology direct access for medicare patients complaining of impaired hearing.

BACKGROUND: Allowing Medicare beneficiaries to self-refer to audiologists for evaluation of hearing loss has been advocated as a cost-effective service delivery model. Resistance to audiology direct access is based, in part, on the concern that audiologists might miss significant otologic conditions. PURPOSE: To evaluate the relative safety of audiology direct access by comparing the treatment plans of audiologists and otolaryngologists in a large group of Medicare-eligible patients seeking hearing evaluation. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective chart review study comparing assessment and treatment plans developed by audiologists and otolaryngologists. STUDY SAMPLE: 1550 records comprising all Medicare eligible patients referred to the Audiology Section of the Mayo Clinic Florida in 2007 with a primary complaint of hearing impairment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Assessment and treatment plans were compiled from the electronic medical record and placed in a secured database. Records of patients seen jointly by audiology and otolaryngology practitioners (Group 1: 352 cases) were reviewed by four blinded reviewers, two otolaryngologists and two audiologists, who judged whether the audiologist treatment plan, if followed, would have missed conditions identified and addressed in the otolaryngologist's treatment plan. Records of patients seen by audiology but not otolaryngology (Group 2: 1198 cases) were evaluated by a neurotologist who judged whether the patient should have seen an otolaryngologist based on the audiologist's documentation and test results. Additionally, the audiologist and reviewing neurotologist judgments about hearing asymmetry were compared to two mathematical measures of hearing asymmetry (Charing Cross and AAO-HNS [American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery] calculations). RESULTS: In the analysis of Group 1 records, the jury of four judges found no audiology discrepant treatment plans in over 95% of cases. In no case where a judge identified a discrepancy in treatment plans did the audiologist plan risk missing conditions associated with significant mortality or morbidity that were subsequently identified by the otolaryngologist. In the analysis of Group 2 records, the neurotologist judged that audiology services alone were all that was required in 78% of cases. An additional 9% of cases were referred for subsequent medical evaluation. The majority of remaining patients had hearing asymmetries. Some were evaluated by otolaryngology for hearing asymmetry in the past with no interval changes, and others were consistent with noise exposure history. In 0.33% of cases, unexplained hearing asymmetry was potentially missed by the audiologist. Audiologists and the neurotologist demonstrated comparable accuracy in identifying Charing Cross and AAO-HNS pure-tone asymmetries. CONCLUSIONS: Of study patients evaluated for hearing problems in the one-year period of this study, the majority (95%) ultimately required audiological services, and in most of these cases, audiological services were the only hearing health-care services that were needed. Audiologist treatment plans did not differ substantially from otolaryngologist plans for the same condition; there was no convincing evidence that audiologists missed significant symptoms of otologic disease; and there was strong evidence that audiologists referred to otolaryngology when appropriate. These findings are consistent with the premise that audiology direct access would not pose a safety risk to Medicare beneficiaries complaining of hearing impairment.

Cost analysis of asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss investigations.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the typical cost of asymmetrical sensorineural hearing loss (ASNHL) work-up, and to compare the positive predictive value from this common presenting symptom. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review from two major otolaryngology centers. METHODS: We reviewed charts from patients presenting to New York Eye and Ear Infirmary between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006, and the University of Minnesota between December 1, 2002 and November 30, 2007 with ASNHL. Diagnostic information included magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and serum laboratory values (antinuclear antibodies, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Lyme, rapid plasma reagin, and thyroid-stimulating hormone). We calculated positive rate according to each item of diagnosis. To estimate cost-benefit, we further calculated the average cost for identifying a patient with a positive result. RESULTS: The total cost was $263,535, whereas the average cost for identifying a positive patient was $146,40.81. The total lab cost was $16,935 and the total imaging cost was $246,600. The average cost for identifying a positive patient based on MRI was $61,650 and $2,109 based on lab values. Of the 247 patients, only six patients (2.4%)-one patient with acoustic neuroma, two patients with syphilis, and three patients with Lyme--were identified with treatable pathology. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive ASNHL work-up may not be applicable to all patients. Laboratory serologic tests are highly cost effective in diagnosing treatable causes of ASNHL, such as syphilis and Lyme. Although radiographic imaging with MRI is not as cost effective, its value in detecting for acoustic neuroma is undeniable.

Systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-channel unilateral cochlear implants for adults.

OBJECTIVE: In the UK approximately 3% of over 50 years olds and 8% of over 70 year olds have severe (794-94 dBHL) to deafness. As deafness increased, hearing aids become increasingly ineffective. Cochelear implants can provide an alternative treatment. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To bring together the research evidence through the robustness of a systematic review of the effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implants for adults. We also sought to systematically review the published literature on cost-effectiveness. TYPES OF REVIEW: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: This examined 16 electronic databases, plus bibliographies and references for published and unpublished studies from inception to june 2009. EVALUATION METHOD: Abstracts were independently assessed against inclusion criteria by two researchers were compared and disagreements resolved. Included papers were then retrieved and further independently assessed in a similar way. Remaining studies had their data independently extracted by one of five reviewers and checked by another reviewer. RESULTS: From 1,580 titles and abstracts nine studies were included. These were of variable quality; some study's results should be viewed with caution. The studies were too hetrogeneous to pool the data. However, overall the results firmly supported the use of unilateral cochler implants for severe to profoundly deaf adults. Additionally, four UK based economic evaluations found unilateral cochlear implants to be cost-effectivene in adults at UK implants centres. CONCLUSION: The methodologically weak but universally positive body of effectiveness evidence supports the use of unilateral cochlear implants in adults. Previous economic evaluations indicate that such implants are likely to be cost-effective.