Socioeconomic Disparities in Pediatric Single-Sided Deafness.

OBJECTIVE: To explore socioeconomic disparities in pediatric single-sided deafness (SSD) treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Tertiary referral academic center. METHODS: The charts of 190 pediatric patients with SSD were reviewed for demographic and clinical characteristics. Socioeconomic variables included race and insurance status. ZIP codes were used to obtain additional socioeconomic data from the American Community Survey, including mean and median income, percentage of families below the poverty level, and employment status. Socioeconomic status (SES) was classified by insurance status and income. Treatment outcomes were analyzed by socioeconomic variables. RESULTS: There were 105 males and 85 females with a mean follow-up of 55.2 months and a mean age at diagnosis of 4.4 years. Sixty-three percent of children received treatment at last follow-up. Thirty-five percent of children had public insurance and 65% had private insurance. Treatment rates were similar in the private and public insurance groups (60.6% vs 66.7%, P = .42), but device type was different between groups (P = .02). Consistent device use was associated with private insurance (47.5% vs 38.9%, P = .003) and high SES (94.4% vs 80%, P = .04) on univariate but not on multivariate analysis. Aided audiometry results were similar between SES groups. No association was found between sex, race, income level, poverty level, or employment status and treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Insurance type and SES were not associated with SSD treatment outcomes in children, although device use may be higher in children with private insurance and higher SES. Further research should focus on strategies to reduce barriers to treatment and improve adherence.

Cost-effective analysis of unilateral cochlear implantation under the Taiwan national healthcare insurance.

Objective: The value of cochlear implantation (CI) has not been established in Taiwan. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of paediatric CI within the context of Taiwan's national health insurance (NHI) programme.Design: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a unilateral CI (UCI) with a contralateral acoustic hearing aid (UCI-HA) compared with a bilateral HA. We performed one-way sensitivity analyses to identify the cost variables that affected the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) the most. Monte Carlo simulation was used to explore the simultaneous effect of all uncertain parameters on cost-effectiveness.Study sample: Not applicable.Results: Compared with bilateral HAs, the ICER for UCI-HA was $6487 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The ICERs were consistently below $7000 per QALY gained and were most sensitive to the selling price of the external CI device. When this selling price increased by 10%, the ICER of UCI-HA would increase to $6954 per QALY gained. UCI-HA has a probability greater than 50% of being cost-effective if the cost-effectiveness threshold exceeds approximately $10,000 per QALY.Conclusions: Our analysis suggested that within the context of Taiwan's NHI programme, UCI is highly cost-effective for deaf children.

Assessing Deaf patients in the neurology clinic.

There are over 87 000 Deaf people in the UK with British Sign Language (BSL) as their first language.1 Few healthcare professionals receive training in Deaf awareness or in BSL, and missed diagnoses and inadequate treatment of Deaf patients are estimated to cost the National Health Service £30 million per year.2 Neurologists are likely to encounter Deaf BSL users in their practice, but without prior experience may find consultations challenging, especially within the time constraints and pressure of a standard clinic. In this article, we provide guidance on consulting with Deaf people in a neurology clinic, drawing on experience from our cognitive clinic for Deaf BSL users where effective communication is essential.

Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Sensorineural hearing loss occurs as a result of damage to the hair cells in the cochlea, or to the auditory nerve. It negatively affects learning and development in children, and employment and economic attainment in adults. Current policy in Ontario is to provide unilateral cochlear implantation for patients with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. However, hearing with both ears as a result of bilateral cochlear implantation may offer added benefits. METHODS: We completed a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, value for money, budget impact, and patient preferences related to bilateral cochlear implantation. We performed a systematic literature search for studies on bilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children from inception to March 2017. We conducted a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective and analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding bilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children in Ontario for the next 5 years. Finally, we conducted interviews with adults who have sensorineural hearing loss and unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants, and with parents of children with bilateral cochlear implants. RESULTS: We included 24 publications (10 in adults, 14 in children) in the clinical evidence review. Compared with unilateral cochlear implantation, bilateral cochlear implantation improved sound localization, speech perception in noise, and subjective benefits of hearing in adults and children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (GRADE: moderate to high). Bilateral cochlear implantation also allowed for better language development and more vocalization in preverbal communication in children (GRADE: moderate). The safety profile was acceptable.Bilateral cochlear implantation was more expensive and more effective than unilateral cochlear implantation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $48,978/QALY in adults and between $27,427/QALY and $30,386/QALY in children. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the quality-of-life values used. We estimated that the net budget impact of publicly funding bilateral cochlear implantation for adults in Ontario would be between $510,000 and $780,000 per year for the next 5 years.Patients described the social and emotional effects of hearing loss, and the benefits and challenges of using cochlear implants. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence of moderate to high quality, we found that bilateral cochlear implantation improved hearing in adults and children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Bilateral cochlear implantation was potentially cost-effective compared to unilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children. Patients with sensorineural hearing loss reported the positive effects of cochlear implants, and patients with unilateral cochlear implants generally expressed a desire for bilateral implants.

A sustainable model for cochlear implantation in the developing world: perspectives from the Indian subcontinent.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The overall prevalence of deafness in India is 0.2%, but the prevalence in the southern state of Tamil Nadu is much higher (around 0.6%) because of consanguinity. Especially in India, establishing cochlear implantation as a treatment modality for hearing loss has been a daunting task, but in the last decade, the cochlear implantation program has emerged as an unqualified success in many states, with over 20 000 cochlear implantations done till date. Several states are sponsoring free implants to children under the age of 6 years and below poverty line. RECENT FINDINGS: Nearly 3000 cochlear implantations have been performed in Tamil Nadu under the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme, with the goal to have a 'deafness free Tamil Nadu' by 2025. This scheme covers nearly 40 million people in rural areas. Valuable lessons have been learnt from this social experiment. One of the cornerstones of this scheme is the method to deliver habilitation via satellite centers in rural areas at the doorstep of the patient. The outcomes in peripheral centers were found to be statistically similar to those in the main center and correlated well with duration of habilitation. SUMMARY: Opening up satellite centers for habilitation across the state of Tamil Nadu has greatly helped to improve the attendance and outcomes. The Indian model has been hugely successful and has helped start similar cochlear implantation programs in neighboring countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Overcoming developing-world challenges in cochlear implantation: a South American perspective.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Effective hearing rehabilitation with cochlear implantation is challenging in developing countries, and this review focuses on strategies for childhood profound sensorineural hearing loss care in South America. RECENT FINDINGS: Most global hearing loss exists in developing countries; optimal cost-effective management strategies are essential in these environments. This review aims to assess and discuss the challenges of cochlear implantation effectiveness in South America. The authors searched electronic databases, bibliographies, and references for published and unpublished studies. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and failure rate. Costs were obtained from experts in South America using known costs and estimations whenever necessary. Recent studies reported several challenges in unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants: cochlear implant costs, deaf education costs, increasing need for cochlear implant capacity, and training and increasing longevity. SUMMARY: Cochlear implantation was very cost-effective in all South American countries. Despite inconsistencies in the quality of available evidence, the robustness of systematic review methods substantiates the positive findings of the included studies, demonstrating that unilateral cochlear implantation is clinically effective and likely to be cost-effective in developing countries.

Cost-effectiveness of CI in developing countries.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants is a major concern for expanding these services to low-income and middle-income developing countries. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have applied appropriate methodology to make determination of cost-effectiveness for cochlear implants in developing countries. In addition, important parameters that effect cost-effectiveness have been reviewed in a systematic way. The combination of these new studies along with existing reports of cochlear implant programmes in developing countries allows for a discussion of cost and outcomes determinants that drive cost-effectiveness in these environments. SUMMARY: Cochlear implants are a very cost-effective treatment for profound hearing loss in all high-resource countries and in many low-income and middle-income developing countries. A number of cost considerations affect cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants in developing countries including device cost and device-related expenses such as power consumption and reliability, but also including rehabilitation and access-related expenses. Large-scale programmes confer an advantage for cost-effectiveness, primarily through device-related savings.

Moving Beyond GDP: Cost Effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation and Deaf Education in Latin America.

HYPOTHESIS: Cochlear implantation (CI) and deaf education are cost effective management strategies of childhood profound sensorineural hearing loss in Latin America. BACKGROUND: CI has been widely established as cost effective in North America and Europe and is considered standard of care in those regions, yet cost effectiveness in other economic environments has not been explored. With 80% of the global hearing loss burden existing in low- and middle-income countries, developing cost effective management strategies in these settings is essential. This analysis represents the continuation of a global assessment of CI and deaf education cost effectiveness. METHODS: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela participated in the study. A Disability Adjusted Life Years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. Experts from each country supplied cost estimates from known costs and published data. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost effectiveness was determined using the World Health Organization standard of cost effectiveness ratio/gross domestic product per capita (CER/GDP)<3. RESULTS: Deaf education was very cost effective in all countries (CER/GDP 0.07-0.93). CI was cost effective in all countries (CER/GDP 0.69-2.96), with borderline cost effectiveness in the Guatemalan sensitivity analysis (Max CER/GDP 3.21). CONCLUSION: Both cochlear implantation and deaf education are widely cost effective in Latin America. In the lower-middle income economy of Guatemala, implant cost may have a larger impact. GDP is less influential in the middle- and high-income economies included in this study.

Cost-Utility of Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-utility of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) versus unilateral CI. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: Five tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults eligible for cochlear implantation. INTERVENTIONS: A cost-utility analysis was performed from a health insurance perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Utility was assessed using the HUI3, TTO, VAS on hearing, VAS on general health and EQ-5D. We modeled the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of unilateral versus bilateral CI over periods of 2, 5, 10, 25 years, and actual life-expectancy. RESULTS: Direct costs for unilateral and bilateral CI were €43,883 ±â€Š€11,513(SD) and €87,765 ±â€Š€23,027(SD) respectively. Annual costs from the second year onward were €3,435 ±â€Š€1,085(SD) and €6,871 ±â€Š€2,169(SD), respectively. A cost-utility analysis revealed that a second implant became cost-effective after a 5- to 10-year period, based on the HUI3, TTO, and VAS on hearing. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that describes a cost-utility analysis to compare unilateral with simultaneous bilateral CI in postlingually deafened adults, using a multicenter RCT. Compared with accepted societal willingness-to-pay thresholds, simultaneous bilateral CI is a cost-effective treatment for patients with a life expectancy of 5-10 years or longer.

GDP Matters: Cost Effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation and Deaf Education in Sub-Saharan Africa.

HYPOTHESIS: Cochlear implantation and deaf education are cost effective in Sub-Saharan Africa. BACKGROUND: Cost effectiveness of pediatric cochlear implantation has been well established in developed countries but is unknown in low resource settings, where access to the technology has traditionally been limited. With incidence of severe-to-profound congenital sensorineural hearing loss 5 to 6 times higher in low/middle-income countries than the United States and Europe, developing cost-effective management strategies in these settings is critical. METHODS: Costs were obtained from experts in Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Malawi using known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability adjusted life years (DALY) model was applied using 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost effectiveness was determined using the WHO standard of cost-effectiveness ratio/gross domestic product per capita (CER/GDP) less than 3. RESULTS: Cochlear implantation was cost effective in South Africa and Nigeria, with CER/GDP of 1.03 and 2.05, respectively. Deaf education was cost effective in all countries investigated, with CER/GDP ranging from 0.55 to 1.56. The most influential factor in the sensitivity analysis was device cost, with the cost-effective threshold reached in all countries using discounted device costs that varied directly with GDP. CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation and deaf education are equally cost effective in lower-middle and upper-middle income economies of Nigeria and South Africa. Device cost may have greater impact in the emerging economies of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and Malawi.

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.

[An update on bone anchored hearing aids]. / Appareils auditifs à ancrage osseux.

Hearing loss represents a hidden handicapwith various repercussions on development and social life. In the majority of cases, classical hearing aids address most hearing losses. However, the enhancement required for severe deafness frequently involves sound distortions which are very uncomfortable for patients. With the advent of bone anchored hearing aids, conductive hearing losses as well as mixed hearing losses are now better rehabilitated. Recently their indications have been expanded to profound to severe sensorineural hearing loss. The emergence of new materials as well as subcutaneous implants has lead to lessen skin complications and has diminished the aesthetic discomfort of this type of hearing devices.

Surgical efficiency in bilateral cochlear implantation: a cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: (1) Compare the non-device-related costs of bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation (BSiCI) vs. unilateral, and (2) establish a dollar amount for potential cost savings in direct costs for BSiCI vs. sequential cochlear implantation (CI). METHODS: Data from all CI cases performed during the fiscal year 2010-2011 were retrospectively reviewed without exception. Fifty-four patients received unilateral CI and 36 received BSiCI. Demographics and data regarding direct costs associated with the operation and immediate in hospital post-operative period were collected. RESULTS: The total operating room (OR) time for unilateral and BSiCI was 3 hours 00 minutes and 4 hours 37 minutes, respectively, with a mean difference of 1 hour and 36 minutes (SD = 0 hours:06 minutes). The cost of OR and post-anesthetic care unit supporting staff was $3102 and $4240 for unilateral and BSiCI, respectively, with a mean difference of $1138 (SD = 216). Unilateral CI supplies totaled $1348 compared to $1822 for BSiCI supplies with an average difference of $438 (SD = 123). CONCLUSION: The total direct costs for a unilateral CI (excluding implantable device and surgeon fees) were $4362 compared to $5823 dollars for BSiCI. Simultaneous implantation can lead to a potential saving of $2901 compared to sequential implantation.

Practices in habilitation of pediatric recipients of cochlear implants in India: A survey.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implant (CI) (re)habilitation programs are long-term processes, with many factors contributing to the overall success. The clinics in India that are working toward pediatric CI habilitation vary in their team philosophy, clinical practices, and service delivery. It is important to explore their clinical perspectives and practices to appreciate their current state and suggest directions for improvement in the future. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to characterize the current status and clinical practices of the pediatric CI programs in India. METHODS: Twenty-two clinics involved in the pediatric CI habilitation program across India participated in the survey. The heads of the CI teams of the participant clinics completed a validated survey questionnaire containing multiple-choice and open-ended questions on the details of the CI habilitation team, assessment and therapy protocols used, and other related clinical services. The categorical data obtained were analyzed using descriptive statistical measures. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The interpretation of results indicated a need to focus future discussions on early identification and management of hearing impairment, funding for CIs, continuing education programs for professionals, decision processes for providing CIs for children with multiple concerns, choice of language(s) of instruction, assessment protocols used, and outreach/consultation services.

[Cochlear implant treatment in Germany]. / Cochleaimplantatversorgung in Deutschland.

INTRODUCTION: Restoration of impaired auditory function through cochlear implant is possible, with high reliably and great success. Nevertheless, there are regular disputes between patients and insurance companies due to high costs. In Germany, approx. 1.9 Mio. people are severely hearing impaired. It can be estimated that for adequate hearing rehabilitation about 30,000 cochlear implants/year are necessary. Currently, less than 10% of those affected are offered cochlear implant. DISCUSSION: A handicap is defined if there is deviation from normal hearing for more than 6 months. This sets a time frame for the supply with cochlear implant after sudden deafness. The professional code requires to advice all medical options to a person seeking help for hearing loss. This includes benefit-risk consideration. At this point, the economic aspect plays no role. The indication for medical treatment is only subject to the treating physician and should not be modified by non-physicians or organizations. It should be noted that a supply of hearing aids is qualitatively different to the help from a cochlear implant, which provides a restoration of lost function. In social law (SGB V and IX) doctors are requested to advise and recommend all measures which contribute to normal hearing (both sides). This indicates that doctors may be prosecuted for not offering help when medically possible, just because health insurance employees did not approve the cost balance. CONCLUSION: The current situation, with insufficient medical care for the hearing impaired, needs clarifying. To do this, patients, health insurance companies, the political institutions, legislation and professional societies need to accept their responsibilities.

A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bilateral multichannel cochlear implants in adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, approximately 10 000 people have cochlear implants, more than 99% with a unilateral implant. Evidence shows that adults implanted bilaterally may benefit from binaural advantages; however, systematic review evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: To conduct a systematic review to discover the evidence for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using bilateral cochlear implants in adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss by comparing their effectiveness with unilateral cochlear implantation or unilateral cochlear implantation and acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear. TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: This examined 16 electronic databases, plus bibliographies and references for published and unpublished studies. EVALUATION METHOD: Abstracts were independently assessed against inclusion criteria by two researchers, and disagreements were resolved. Selected papers were then retrieved and further independently assessed in a similar way. Included studies had their data extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. RESULTS: Searches yielded 2892 abstracts producing 19 includable studies. Heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analysis. However, all studies reported that bilateral cochlear implants improved hearing and speech perception: one randomised controlled trial found a significant binaural benefit over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front (12.6 ± 5.4%, P < 0.001) and when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear (21 ± 6%, P < 0.001); and another found a significant benefit for spatial hearing at 3 and 9 months post-implantation compared with pre-implantation [mean difference (sd) scores: 3 months = 1.46 (0.83-2.09), P < 0.01].Quality of life results varied, showing bilateral implantation may improve quality of life in the absence of worsening tinnitus. Limited cost-effectiveness evidence showed that bilateral implantation is probably only cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold above £62 000 per quality adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Despite inconsistency in the quality of available evidence, the robustness of systematic review methods gives weight to the positive findings of included studies demonstrating that bilateral implantation is clinically effective in adults but unlikely to be cost-effective.

Cost effectiveness of strategies to combat vision and hearing loss in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative costs, effects, and cost effectiveness of selected interventions to control cataract, trachoma, refractive error, hearing loss, meningitis and chronic otitis media. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis of or combined strategies for controlling vision and hearing loss by means of a lifetime population model. SETTING: Two World Health Organization sub-regions of the world where vision and hearing loss are major burdens: sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia. DATA SOURCES: Biological and behavioural parameters from clinical and observational studies and population based surveys. Intervention effects and resource inputs based on published reports, expert opinion, and the WHO-CHOICE database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted, expressed in international dollars ($Int) for the year 2005. RESULTS: Treatment of chronic otitis media, extracapsular cataract surgery, trichiasis surgery, treatment for meningitis, and annual screening of schoolchildren for refractive error are among the most cost effective interventions to control hearing and vision impairment, with the cost per DALY averted <$Int285 in both regions. Screening of both schoolchildren (annually) and adults (every five years) for hearing loss costs around $Int1000 per DALY averted. These interventions can be considered highly cost effective. Mass treatment with azithromycin to control trachoma can be considered cost effective in the African but not the South East Asian sub-region. CONCLUSIONS: Vision and hearing impairment control interventions are generally cost effective. To decide whether substantial investments in these interventions is warranted, this finding should be considered in relation to the economic attractiveness of other, existing or new, interventions in health.

Estimated net saving to society from cochlear implantation in infants: a preliminary analysis.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Although it is clear that cochlear implants (CIs) are highly cost-effective in adults and children, the possible additional economic benefit of implantation at younger ages has to be fully established to verify whether the costs and outcomes of CIs differ between infants and older children. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Comprehensive data of CI costs were obtained in four groups of children (age 2-11, 12-23, 24-35, and 72-83 months) from parent questionnaires, national healthcare and educational systems, and retail prices for materials used. Outcomes are compared in terms of receptive language level (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised [PPVT-R]), with follow-up to the chronological age of 10 years. RESULTS: Implantation in infants was associated with a lower total cost for the first 10 years of life. The net savings to society ranged from around 21,000€ in the two younger classes to more than 35,000€ when comparing infants against children in the oldest group. When implantation was delayed, family costs played an important role in the increase in expenses. Children in the 2- to 11-month group scored significantly better at the PPVT-R than those in the other age groups (P < .05, P < .01, and P < .001, respectively; Dunn's test) at 10 years of age. The cost per 1-year gain in vocabulary age at the PPVT-R showed a substantial difference between the youngest and oldest age groups (13,266€/year, 17,719€/year, 20,029€/year, and 28,042€/year, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CIs for patients under 1 year of age afford significantly improved performance and a net savings to society.

Implementing neonatal screening for congenital cytomegalovirus: addressing the deafness of policy makers.

Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an important public health problem with approximately 7 in 1,000 newborns infected and consequently at risk for hearing impairment. Newborn hearing screening will fail to detect this hearing impairment in approximately half of the cases because late onset hearing loss is frequent. Hearing impairment has profound impact on cognitive and social development of children and their families, determining most of the disease burden of congenital CMV infection. The potential value of newborn screening for congenital CMV is increasingly discussed. To date, many experts acknowledge the benefit of antiviral treatment in the prevention of hearing deterioration in newborns with neurological symptoms, and the benefit of early identification of late-onset hearing impairment by means of extensive audiological follow up of infected infants. These opinions imply that the potential of newborn screening for CMV would lie in the identification of the large proportion of asymptomatic congenitally infected newborns at risk for developing late-onset hearing loss. Experience with postnatal antiviral treatment of symptomatic newborns is encouraging, but has not been studied in asymptomatic congenitally infected newborns. A large-scale study on the safety and effectiveness of combined screening and antiviral therapy for congenital CMV infection is the necessary next step to take and should not be delayed.

Medicaid reimbursement of hearing services for infants and young children.

As newborn hearing-screening programs have expanded, more and more infants and young children need hearing services. Medicaid is one of the primary sources of funding for such services and, by law, must establish payment rates that are sufficient to enlist enough providers to provide services. In this study we compared 2005 Medicaid reimbursement rates for hearing services for infants and young children in 15 states with the payment rates for the same services by Medicare and commercially available health insurance. On average, Medicaid rates for the same services were only 67 as high as Medicare and only 38 as high as commercial fees. Furthermore, most Medicaid rates declined from 2000 to 2005, and many states did not have billing codes for a significant number of the hearing services needed by infants and young children. These factors likely contribute to infants and young children with hearing loss not being able to get the hearing services they need to benefit from early identification of hearing loss. These data also raise questions about the extent to which states are meeting the federal requirement that Medicaid payments be sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are adequately available to the general population in the geographic area.