Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Preschool Children for Hearing Loss in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: While all newborns in Australia are tested for congenital hearing loss through universal newborn hearing screening programs, some children will acquire hearing loss in their first five years of life. Delayed diagnosed or undiagnosed hearing loss in children can have substantial immediate- and long-term consequences. It can significantly reduce school readiness, language and communication development, social and emotional development, and mental health. It can also compromise lifetime educational achievements and employment opportunities and future economic contribution to society through lost productivity. The need for a universal hearing screening program for children entering their first year of primary school has been noted in two separate Australian Government hearing inquiries in the last decade. Sound Scouts is a hearing screening application (app) that tests for hearing loss in children using a tablet or mobile device, supervised by parents at home. It tests for sensorineural or permanent conductive hearing loss and central auditory processing disorder in children. In 2018 the Australian Government funded the roll-out of Sound Scouts to allow up to 600,000 children to test their hearing using Sound Scouts. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of screening 5-year-old children for hearing loss using Sound Scouts at home, compared with no screening. DESIGN: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of administering Sound Scouts over a 20-year time horizon. Testing accuracy was based on comparing Sound Scouts test results to clinical test results while other parameters were based on published data. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the Australian health care system. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Sound Scouts is estimated to result in an average incremental cost of A$61.02 and an average incremental increase in QALYs of 0.01. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$5392 per QALY gained, which is likely to be considered cost-effective by Australian decision makers. Screening with Sound Scouts was found to have a 96.2 per cent probability of being cost-effective using a threshold of A$60,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Using Sound Scouts to screen five-year-old children for hearing loss (at home) is likely to be cost-effective. Screening children using Sound Scouts will result in early identification and intervention in childhood hearing loss, thereby reducing early childhood disadvantage through cumulative gains in quality of life, education, and economic outcomes over their lifetime.

The cost-effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implants in UK adults.

OBJECTIVE: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated its eligibility criteria for unilateral cochlear implants (UCIs) in 2019. NICE claimed this would not impact the cost-effectiveness results used within its 2009 technology appraisal guidance. This claim is uncertain given changed clinical practice and increased healthcare unit costs. Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness estimates of UCIs in UK adults with severe to profound hearing loss within the contemporary NHS environment. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis employing a Markov model was undertaken to compare UCIs with hearing aids or no hearing aids for people with severe to profound hearing loss. A clinical pathway was developed to estimate resource use. Health-related quality of life, potential adverse events, device upgrades and device failure were captured. Unit costs were derived mostly from the NHS data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis further assessed the effect of uncertain model inputs. RESULTS: A UCI is likely to be deemed cost-effective when compared to a hearing aid (£11,946/QALY) or no hearing aid (£10,499/QALY). A UCI has an 93.0% and 98.7% likelihood of being cost-effective within the UK adult population when compared to a hearing aid or no hearing aid, respectively. ICERs were mostly sensitive to the proportion of people eligible for cochlear implant, discount rate, surgery and device costs and processor upgrade cost. CONCLUSION: UCIs remain cost-effective despite changes to clinical practice and increased healthcare unit costs. Updating the NICE criteria to provide better access UCIs is projected to increase annual implants in adults and children by 70% and expenditure by £28.6 million within three years. This increased access to UCIs will further improve quality of life of recipients and overall social welfare.

The cost-effectiveness of Cochlear implants in Swedish adults.

BACKGROUND: Research has shown unilateral cochlear implants (CIs) significantly improve clinical outcomes and quality of life in adults. However, only 13% of eligible Swedish adults currently use a unilateral CI. The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of unilateral CIs compared to a hearing aid for Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss. METHODS: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon and six-month cycle length was developed to estimate the benefits and costs of unilateral CIs from the Swedish health system perspective. A treatment pathway was developed through consultation with clinical experts to estimate resource use and costs. Unit costs were derived from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. Health outcomes were reported in terms of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). RESULTS: Unilateral CIs for Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss are likely to be deemed cost-effective when compared to a hearing aid (SEK 140,474 per QALY gained). The results were most sensitive to the age when patients are implanted with a CI and the proportion of patients eligible for CIs after triage. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in the prevalence of Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss is expected as the population ages. Earlier implantation of unilateral CIs improves the cost-effectiveness among people eligible for CIs. Unilateral CIs are an efficacious and cost-effective option to improve hearing and quality of life in Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss.