Organisation and cost-effectiveness of antenatal haemoglobinopathy screening and follow up in a community-based programme.

OBJECTIVE: To consider the organisation cost and effectiveness, of universal, community-based antenatal screening for the haemoglobinopathies, and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of programmes at different levels of prevalence and mix of haemoglobinopathy traits. DESIGN: Retrospective review of laboratory and Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Centre worksheets with costing of capital equipment, consumables, salaries and overheads, and estimation of costs in a range of circumstances. SETTING: A haematology department, including a Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Centre, providing antenatal and neonatal screening programmes in Inner London. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand one hundred and one women booking at the antenatal clinic whose samples were referred for screening during 1994. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: In addition to assessing the cost-effectiveness of antenatal haemoglobinopathy screening in a number of settings, the following specific financial information was assembled for the service in Brent: 1. cost of identifying abnormal haemoglobin in mother (l209); 2. cost of identifying at-risk fetus before confirmation by prenatal diagnosis (l2,455); 3. cost of providing genetic information and counselling to mother with abnormal haemoglobin (l109); 4. programme savings from cases averted (l61,000). Conclusions Antenatal screening with follow up counselling can be self-financing at most prevalences of haemoglobinopathy traits, with greater savings where a high proportion of the traits are beta thalassaemia. There is a net financial cost (l1,350) only at prevalences below 2.5% of traits if these are mainly for sickle cell disease. Since there are other benefits is it likely that antenatal screening will be considered cost-effective even at quite low levels of trait prevalence.

Costing model for neonatal screening and diagnosis of haemoglobinopathies.

AIM: To compare the costs and cost effectiveness of universal and targeted screening for the haemoglobinopathies; to compare the cost of two laboratory methods; and to estimate the cost effectiveness of programmes at different levels of prevalence and mix of haemoglobinopathy traits. METHODS: A retrospective review of laboratory and follow up records to establish workload and costs, and estimation of costs in a range of circumstances was made in a haematology department and sickle cell and thalassaemia centre, providing antenatal and neonatal screening programmes in Inner London. The costs for 47,948 babies, screened during 1994, of whom 25 had clinically significant haemoglobinopathies and 704 had haemoglobinopathy traits, were retrospectively assessed. RESULTS: The average cost per baby tested (isoelectric focusing and high power liquid chromatography) was 3.51 Pounds /3.83 Pounds respectively; the cost per case of sickle cell disease identified (IEF/HPLC) was 6738 Pounds /7355 Pounds; the cost per trait identified (IEF/HPLC) was 234 Pounds /255 Pounds; the cost per extra case of SCD and trait identified by universal programme varied. CONCLUSIONS: IEF and HPLC are very similar in terms of average cost per test. At 16 traits/1000 and 0.5 SCD/1000 there was no significant identification cost difference between universal and targeted programmes. Below this prevalence, a targeted programme is cheaper but likely to miss cases of SCD. If targeted programmes were 90-99% effective, universal programmes would cease to be good value except at very high prevalence. Greater use of prenatal diagnosis, resulting in termination, and therefore fewer affected births, reduces the cost effectiveness of universal screening. Screening services should aim to cover a screened population which will generate a workload over 25,000 births a year, and preferably over 40,000.