Risk versus benefit: Should not audiologists assess this in the context of occupational noise-induced hearing loss in the mining industry?

BACKGROUND: Hearing conservation programmes (HCPs) are an important aspect of occupational health efforts to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss (ONIHL). In low- and middle income (LAMI) countries, where the incidence of ONIHL is significant, it is important to deliberate on the risk or benefit of HCPs. OBJECTIVES: This article is an attempt at highlighting important strategic indicators as well as important variables that the occupational health and audiology community need to consider to plan efficacious HCPs within the South African mining context. METHOD: The current arguments are presented in the form of a viewpoint publication. RESULTS: Occupational audiology vigilance in the form of engagement with HCPs in the mining industry has been limited within the South African research and clinical communities. When occupational audiology occurs, it is conducted by mid-level workers and paraprofessionals; and it is non-systematic, non-comprehensive and non-strategic. This is compounded by the current, unclear externally enforced accountability by several bodies, including the mining industry regulating body, with silent and/or peripheral regulation by the Health Professions Council of South Africa and the Department of Health. The lack of involvement of audiologists in the risk or benefit evaluation of HCPs during their development and monitoring process, as well as their limited involvement in the development of policies and regulations concerning ear health and safety within this population are probable reasons for this. CONCLUSIONS: Increased functioning of the regulatory body towards making the employers accountable for the elimination of ONIHL, and a more central and prominent role for audiologists in HCPs, are strongly argued for.

Amplification and aural rehabilitation in resource-constrained environments.

OBJECTIVES: This article attempts to highlight the challenges and possibilities for hearing healthcare through technology and aural rehabilitation in a resource-constrained setting, using South Africa as an example.Results and conclusionThe authors argue that it is possible to enhance service delivery by using free resources and maximising the limited existing resources. In order to provide a sustainable hearing healthcare service in developing countries, it is pertinent to understand the context where the services are needed, and not just adopt an approach developed for a different context. Audiologists in such settings need to employ strategies to develop context-specific tools, and adapt existing tools to serve the needs of the local population. Some examples, although not exhaustive, are provided in the article.

Cost and outcome of a community-based paediatric hearing screening programme in rural India with application of tele-audiology for follow-up diagnostic hearing assessment.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost and outcome of a community-based hearing screening programme in which village health workers (VHWs) screened children in their homes using a two-step DPOAE screening protocol. Children referred in a second screening underwent tele diagnostic ABR testing in a mobile tele-van using satellite connectivity or at local centre using broadband internet at the rural location. DESIGN: Economic analysis was carried out to estimate cost incurred and outcome achieved for hearing screening, follow-up diagnostic assessment and identification of hearing loss. Two-way sensitivity analysis determined the most beneficial cost-outcome. STUDY SAMPLE: 1335 children under 5 years of age underwent screening by VHWs. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 22 children referred completed the tele diagnostic evaluation. Five children were identified with hearing loss. The cost-outcomes were better when using broadband internet for tele-diagnostics. The use of least expensive human resources and equipment yielded the lowest cost per child screened (Rs.1526; $23; €21). When follow-up expenses were thus maximised, the cost per child was reduced considerably for diagnostic hearing assessment (Rs.102,065; $1532; €1368) and for the cost per child identified (Rs.388,237; $5826; €5204). CONCLUSION: Settings with constrained resources can benefit from a community-based programme integrated with tele diagnostics.

Difficult conversations: talking about cost in audiology consultations with older adults.

OBJECTIVE: Financial cost is a barrier for many older adults in their decision to obtain hearing aids (HAs). This study aimed to examine conversations about the cost of HAs in detail within initial audiology appointments. DESIGN: Sixty-two initial audiology appointments were video-recorded. The data were analysed using conversation analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants included 26 audiologists, 62 older adults and 17 companions. RESULTS: Audiologists and clients displayed interactional difficulty during conversations about cost. Clients often had emotional responses to the cost of HAs, which were not attended to by audiologists. It was typical for audiologists to present one HA cost option at a time, which led to multiple rejections from clients which made the interactions difficult. Alternatively, when audiologists offered multiple cost options at once this led to a smoother interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Audiologists and clients were observed to have difficulty talking about HA costs. Offering clients multiple HA cost options at the same time can engage clients in the decision-making process and lead to a smoother interaction between audiologist and client in the management phase of appointments.

Professional Reimbursement by Medicaid for Cochlear Implants and Related Services.

HYPOTHESIS: Medicaid reimbursement rates for cochlear implants and related services fall short of the federal benchmark set by Medicare. BACKGROUND: The financial hardships of cochlear implant centers around the United States may be a repercussion of poor Medicaid reimbursement. In time, these reimbursement discrepancies could force additional Otolaryngologists and cochlear implant centers to not provide these crucial services due to financial limitations. METHODS: Based on Medicare (MCR) claims data, current procedural terminology (CPT) codes used for cochlear implantation and related services were selected. Medicaid (MCD) and Medicare (MCR) payment schemes were queried for the same services in 49 states and Washington, D.C. The difference in MCD and MCR payment in dollars and percent was determined and reimbursement per relative value of work (RVU) calculated. MCD reimbursement differences (by dollar amount and by percentage) were qualified as a shortfall or excess as compared with the MCR benchmark. RESULTS: Marked differences in MCD and MCR reimbursement exist for all cochlear implant related services, most commonly as a substantial shortfall. The MCD shortfall varied in amount between states and great variability in reimbursement exists within and between audiology, surgery, and speech services. Shortfalls and excesses were not consistent between procedures or states. CONCLUSIONS: The variation in MCD payment models reflects marked differences in the value of the same work provided, which in many cases is far less than federal benchmarks. These results question the fairness of the MCD reimbursement scheme in cochlear implantation with potential serious implications on access to care for this underserved patient population.

Cost Effectiveness of Childhood Cochlear Implantation and Deaf Education in Nicaragua: A Disability Adjusted Life Year Model.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implantation (CI) is a common intervention for severe-to-profound hearing loss in high-income countries, but is not commonly available to children in low resource environments. Owing in part to the device costs, CI has been assumed to be less economical than deaf education for low resource countries. The purpose of this study is to compare the cost effectiveness of the two interventions for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in a model using disability adjusted life years (DALYs). METHODS: Cost estimates were derived from published data, expert opinion, and known costs of services in Nicaragua. Individual costs and lifetime DALY estimates with a 3% discounting rate were applied to both two interventions. Sensitivity analysis was implemented to evaluate the effect on the discounted cost of five key components: implant cost, audiology salary, speech therapy salary, number of children implanted per year, and device failure probability. RESULTS: The costs per DALY averted are $5,898 and $5,529 for CI and deaf education, respectively. Using standards set by the WHO, both interventions are cost effective. Sensitivity analysis shows that when all costs set to maximum estimates, CI is still cost effective. CONCLUSION: Using a conservative DALY analysis, both CI and deaf education are cost-effective treatment alternatives for severe-to-profound SNHL. CI intervention costs are not only influenced by the initial surgery and device costs but also by rehabilitation costs and the lifetime maintenance, device replacement, and battery costs. The major CI cost differences in this low resource setting were increased initial training and infrastructure costs, but lower medical personnel and surgery costs.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for hearing loss.

Routine hearing screening can identify patients who are motivated to seek out and adhere to treatment, but little information exists on the cost-effectiveness of hearing screening in a general population of older veterans. We compared the cost-effectiveness of three screening strategies (tone-emitting otoscope, hearing handicap questionnaire, and both together) against no screening (control group) in 2,251 older veterans. The effectiveness measure for each group was the proportion of hearing aid use 1 year after screening. The audiology cost measure included costs of hearing loss screening and audiology care for 1 year after screening. Incremental cost-effectiveness was the audiology cost of additional hearing aid use for each screening group compared with the control group. The mean total audiology cost per patient was $77.04, $122.70, $121.37, and $157.08 for the control, otoscope, questionnaire, and dual screening groups, respectively. The tone-emitting otoscope appears to be the most cost-effective approach for hearing loss screening, with a significant increase in hearing aid use 1 year after screening (2.8%) and an insignificant incremental cost-effectiveness of $1,439.00 per additional hearing aid user compared with the control group. For this population of older veterans, screening for hearing loss with the tone-emitting otoscope is cost-effective.

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.

Measuring hearing aid outcomes--not as easy as it seems.

Outcomes measurement in audiology has received much attention because of the need to demonstrate efficacy of treatment, provide evidence for third-party payment, carry out cost-benefit analyses, and justify resource allocation. Outcomes measurement shows the benefits obtained from a hearing aid and determines the costs of obtaining those benefits. In this article, we discuss why the seemingly simple issue of outcomes measurement is highly complex and the use of generic and disease-specific tools and the relationship between them; we also provide information regarding the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) system for selecting outcome measures. We then discuss factors complicating outcomes measurement, including discrepancies between clinically derived outcomes and functional outcomes, the ways clinicians can affect outcomes, and factors intrinsic to the patient that influence outcomes. We conclude that if the vision of moving quickly and efficiently from bench to chairside is to be realized, then clinicians must routinely measure hearing aid outcomes and researchers investigate their validity and usefulness.

Payment under public and private insurance and access to cochlear implants.

BACKGROUND: Cochlear implants are expensive, yet often cost-effective. However, among hundreds of thousands of potential US candidates, only about 3000 received implants in 1999. To analyze whether insurance reimbursement levels may contribute to low access rates. DESIGN: Surveys were performed during 1999 and 2000 of physicians and audiologists at clinics providing cochlear implant services, selected hospitals where surgery is performed, and state Medicaid agencies. Secondary data were obtained on Medicare payment rates and hourly incomes of otolaryngologists and audiologists. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-one physicians (response rate 67.9%), 111 audiologists (74.0%), 60 hospitals (73.2%), and 44 Medicaid agencies (86.3%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Reimbursement rates for selected Current Procedural Terminology codes and for cochlear implant systems (devices); time required to perform services; additional time not reimbursed; and device purchase prices. RESULTS: Medicare and Medicaid payment rates often fail to cover costs of aural rehabilitation. Medicare sometimes and Medicaid often fails to cover surgeon costs. Sometimes private insurance does not cover hospitals' device costs. Under Medicare, in 1999 hospitals lost more than $10 000 per device for inpatient surgery and about $5000 per device for each outpatient surgery. Device reimbursement in 2002 for outpatient surgery under Medicare is about $3773 higher than in 1999. Medicaid device payment policies vary greatly and fail to cover costs in at least 18 states, accounting for 44% of national Medicaid enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to expand access to cochlear implants may be impeded by financial incentives. Facilitating access for Medicare and Medicaid patients could require changes in payment policies.